admin (PRO)I thank my opponent for the opportunity to do this debate. God debates are always enjoyable, and I love devil's advocating. This is a blatent plagiarism of my own previous case that I ran here.
My case demonstrates, hopefully, a preponderance of evidence for the reality of the Christian God. There are two elements I should have to prove:
1. I should show that we should believe in God
2. I should show that this God is likely to be the Christian God as opposed to some other God (I intend to use the validity of the resurrection of Jesus to show this, as the single defining belief that sets Christianity apart)
Why we should accept the reality of God
1) The Descartes argument. It is impossible for a being to be all-perfect, all-knowing etc and not exist. Therefore such a being must exist. The existence of God can thus be logically deduced.
2) The Lewis Argument. If there was no God to create the universe, then the universe must have been an accident. If the universe is an accident, so is our thinking. If our thinking is an accident, we have no reason to believe it. This is absurd because we have already established the universe exists but cannot establish our existence as a subset of said universe. The only other two options left are nihilism and God. The existence of God can thus be evidently deduced.
3) The Pascal Argument. Either God exists or it does not. If we believe it exists, rewards are huge or naught. If we don't believe it exists, rewards are negative or naught. Therefore it is a safer bet to believe it exists. The existence of God is thus a worthwhile belief (this argument does not set out to show that God exists, but it's an important point because even if God did exist, that doesn't mean we should accept God, for example if God had become irrelevant).
4) The Kant Argument. Any attempt to refute God that holds any weight relies on logic. Therefore the argument presupposes the existence of logic. Logical truths cannot be proven without reference to God. Therefore any argument against God presupposes the existence of God. The existence of God is thus a precondition for this whole discussion.
Why the resurrection of Jesus is likely to be true
1) The testimony of hundreds of people, written down by the best scholars of the day. If the resurrection had been false, surely the Jewish authorities could have lulled this rebellion by simply producing the body of the crucified? There are more sources for the resurrection of Jesus than there are for Julius Caesar's conquest of Gaul. It is one of the few narratives from ancient times apparently not to have much legendary development.
2) The fact that many of the witnesses during the immediate period after the death were hostile to Jesus, such as Paul. Many were skeptical, and went on fact-finding missions. We do not have any sources for about 150 years that doubt the resurrection of Jesus, despite much research going on.
3) The lack of any plausible competing account that really explains the event of the empty tomb and the post-resurrection sightings to over 500 people near the tomb.
I look forward to my opponent's case.
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-01-02 10:56:41
| Speak Round
18Karl (CON)FRAMEWORK:
This is a fact-debate. There are two possibilities: either the Christian God exists, or the Christian God does not exist. The opposition's case on these grounds are already refuted: it would be nice, indeed, if a Christian God exists, and that we should believe in the existence of this God. But this is no theological debate; it is a philosophical one. What is asked in this debate is for proof of the existence of a Christian God, defined accordingly to the rules as a
"Omnipotent, Omniscient and Malevolent Extra-Universal Entity". This debate does not ask for theological justification for belief in God (Resurrection of Jesus, Pascal's Wager etc.) but proof of a God (Ontological, Lewis, Kantian) that has objective existence to all observers. The BoP lies exclusively on the government side in this debate, for the government side has the positive unscientific claim. Moreover, "existence" here means that the opposition has to affirm the modal operator G (if G is defined as God's existence), which affirms that God exists in this reality, not in some imaginary reality; the opposition cannot assert possibly-G, but perhaps he might find a way to prove that necessarily-G. For my part, if my demonstration proves not-G, then I shall consider my BoP fulfilled.
"Omnipotent, Omniscient and Malevolent Extra-Universal Entity". This debate does not ask for theological justification for belief in God (Resurrection of Jesus, Pascal's Wager etc.) but proof of a God (Ontological, Lewis, Kantian) that has objective existence to all observers. The BoP lies exclusively on the government side in this debate, for the government side has the positive unscientific claim. Moreover, "existence" here means that the opposition has to affirm the modal operator G (if G is defined as God's existence), which affirms that God exists in this reality, not in some imaginary reality; the opposition cannot assert possibly-G, but perhaps he might find a way to prove that necessarily-G. For my part, if my demonstration proves not-G, then I shall consider my BoP fulfilled.
1. The Ontological Argument
(this is actually the Anselm Ontological btw) The Ontological Argument faces two objections that are largely directed against the argument itself, and two more regarding the nature of the argumentation. However, before we take this further, this is the Ontological Argument phrased in a different manner:
- By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
- A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
- Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
- But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
- Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
- God exists in the mind as an idea.
- Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality
Let us attack this on the Kantian basis first. On further analysis of P5, one can see the following axioms used: (a) that "existence" is "perfection" or the "essence of omnipotence" and (b) this reality is the "best" reality possible. These assumptions may first seem phony and insignificant, but upon further inspection, I believe that it can be shown that this argument is unsound. [2]
Now, take the assumption that (a) existence is perfection. Then say I imagine the most perfect state in the world, where the people bow down to me, and pizzas fall down from the sky. Imagine your version of Utopia. Utopia, like God, is analytically the most perfect and great state in the world. Via this logic, since this is the greatest state ever to have existed, then it would exist. But this is clearly flawed; the greatest and most perfect state does not yet exist in this possible world. The object of this debate is to prove that this being called "the Christian God" exists in our world in the status quo, or say, in this reality. [1]
The next objection against this argument is based upon the notion of the "best possible world" theory. We do not live, unlike what Leibniz says, in the "best possible world". We know this because this world is governed by many imperfections. We can imagine a world where these imperfections are gone, making the imagined world the best possible world. As we have first asserted, we wanted to confirm the existence of a God in our world (modal operator term G). If existence is perfection, then God exists in a world where the best possible "events" have taken place, and for all we know it, it is not our world. Henceforth, existence in our reality is the negation of perfection, for the world could be more perfect, and if God exists in this imperfect reality, then God is not omnipotent.
With these objections raised, let us raise more technical objections. The first one deals with how a priori proofs cannot derive a posteriori conclusions, and the second one deals with how analytical propositions cannot prove synthetical propositions.
Let us tackle the first objection using this first. I stand here in complete assertion that a priori notions cannot derive a posteriori proofs for the following reason: existence deals with a reality which is objective, and knowledge of existence can only be derived from a posteriori sources. Take this analysis for example: imagine a noise in your head that you have never heard, say that of the Big Bang, or that of me blowing my new flute (woo hoo Thailand!). You cannot: you have a priori impressions of what this may sound like, but you may not, from these a priori impressions, form an objective knowledge of the Big Bang's sound, or the sound of Tchaikovsky playing "1812 Overture" on his piano, because you have not experienced it. I believe the same can be said about the existence of God: a priori proofs simply do not work in this respect. Existence is an a posteriori notion; all that exists, we have a posteriori knowledge of. To conclude that God exists from a priori statements is the same as concluding that you know what the Big Bang sounds like from past impressions. One who has not experienced another simply does not have any idea of what that one is like. "How is it possible to connect concepts that one has not had experienced of to concepts that one has also have not experience of?" [3]
Secondly, I want to tackle a more defining point: analytical proof of the existence of God must come from the definitions of the nature of reality, existence and objectivity only. To argue from semantics for the existence of a synthetical judgment is, I feel, unsupported and almost impossible. It would be like arguing that from the nature of Socrates, we could prove that he is mortal. This is clearly incorrect as we have categorized Socrates as belonging to the category "man", which via definition is mortal. We are here arguing from the nature of God that God must exist, but not the nature of reality and existence. However, it must be from the definitions of nature that God's existence is to be analytically deduced.
2. Argument from Logical Truths
The argument is another faulty argument. I shall here argue that it is not God that causes logical truths and falsities, but it is the nature of the human mind, and the nature of such propositions. Let us take De Morgan's Law as an example for constructing a good understanding of the nature of logical statements.
De Morgan's Law (now abbreviated as DML) states the following (metalogical iff): ¬(P•Q) ↔ (¬P)∨(¬Q). Let us analyze this statement for a second: it is clear that ¬(P•Q) it would follow that (¬P) ∨ (¬Q) for if (Q) then the truth-function of ¬(P•Q) would be false, and so would that of the statement (¬P)∨(¬Q). This is a simple proof of DML. There exists a much more complex proof that, whilst making no reference to a God. The modern logical of propositional calculus has even proven the simplest and the most miscellaneous logic truths: for example, the law of the excluded-middle has been proven thoroughly. The law of the excluded middle (LEM) rests upon these fields (p is defined as a proposition, and x is defined as the individual proposition): (X
P)≡(P∨¬P). Proof of this is easy: say that ¬(P∨¬P). But the statement ¬(P∨¬P) is interchangeable with the statement (P∨¬P), hence LEM. [4,5,6]
P)≡(P∨¬P). Proof of this is easy: say that ¬(P∨¬P). But the statement ¬(P∨¬P) is interchangeable with the statement (P∨¬P), hence LEM. [4,5,6]- Now, it does not take a genius logician to see these arguments through. The language of propositional calculus have proven, via pure reason, the truth functions of such logical laws. There are some fields that deny these laws, such as the deviant logicians, but their negation of these laws demonstrate that God does not exist. But let us dismiss the deviant logicians for now, and move onto proving the it is the nature of such statements that allow for them to be demonstrated to be true. Now, not every logical law can be proven: some of them are conjectures waiting for refutations. The perfect example of this is the law of identity. x=x, just as admin=admin. It is a conjecture waiting to be refuted. These arguments do not need explanation for why they are true. But let us say that God mandates it so. If God mandates it so, then God has the abilities to mandate it not so: that (x=¬x) is so. However, if God mandates this (as he is omnipotent), does that mean that God can mandate that God is not God? Then if that is possible, then God cannot exist, for God has just mandated that it is possible that He is not Him! Hence the mandate that logical truths bases it's premises on God is fallacious. Then this leaves us with the conclusion that God does not mandate logical truths, and henceforth, God's existence cannot be proven on these grounds.
- 3. Argument from Reason
- The Argument from Reason goes along the lines of the following:
1. Since everything in nature can be wholly explained in terms of non-rational causes, human reason (more precisely, the power of drawing conclusions based solely on the rational cause of logical insight) must have a source outside of nature.
2. If human reason came from non-reason it would lose all rational credentials and would cease to be reason.
3. So, human reason cannot come from non-reason (from 2).
4. So human reason must come from a source outside nature that is itself rational (from 1 and 3).
5. This supernatural source of reason may itself be dependent on some further source of reason, but a chain of such dependent sources cannot go on forever. Eventually, we must reason back to the existence of eternal, non-dependent source of human reason.
6. Therefore, there exists an eternal, self-existent, rational Being who is the ultimate source of human reason. This Being we call God
I shall attack the notion here of "non-reason". There is a huge difference between irrational thoughts, which could make something lose all it's credentials, and non-rational thoughts. Irrational thoughts are via definition non-rational; for example, I might irrationally believe that admin has a crush on nzlockie. This is an irrational thought which would, if it were the basis of all my reasoning, would be faulty. This irrationality is present in many philosophies that are unpopular nowadays; in Nazism (with it's racialist irrationalism), in Fideism (with it's Catholic irrationalism) and in Salafism (with it's Islamist irrationalism). Non-rationality would, of course, lead to a much different result; our neurons firing, for example, is a non-rational cause. There was no reason it fired; we cannot determine it's firing, but yet it is with this firing that a whole plethora of logical reasoning leads to. For example, it was the result of the firing in neurons in my brains the led me to conclude that, from the premiss that men are mortals and that Socrates is a man, that Socrates is Mortal. This is non-rational, yet it is perfectly justified. Perhaps C.S Lewis's argument had some non-rational cause in the creation of his argument. So in retrospect, yes, human reasoning can come from non-rational cause if the credentials were still to be preserved. [7]
Apart from this, there is another inconsistency in this argument: we reason everyday. From philosophers to laymen, we reason about everything, from why we should eat food from why Admin is the best Admin in the world. If the source of this reason is this being called God, then we would see the following things: that (a) neuronal events are to be both predictable, and determined, and that (b) we should find a pattern in moral objectivity relating to "God's" system of morality, in this case, the Christian morality.
Let us start with the more abstract first. In the probability of (b), in which God controls our moral reasoning, we should see objective moral reasoning and standards to all societies. There should be moral objectivity in such weird and obscure fields as Gay Marriage, and even abortion. However, we know for sure that this moral objectivity does not exist, for there are disagreements over it. Henceforth, if God is the ultimate source of human reason, then objective morality is a must. Objective morality does not exist, hence God is not the ultimate source of human reason.
Furthermore, neuronal events, if under such a moment, should be pre-determined by events preceding it directly. This is very much like what the fatalists argue; that events are determined. However, neuronal firing are as indeterminate as indeterminacy can get. It is proven that "single neuron exhibits different responses to repeated presentations of a specific input signal" suggesting that there are determinants that could control them. Unless the Gods of the Gaps argument is used, and shows that every neuron has a consciousness directly connected to God, in which case there would be more determinants for the movement of the neuron for which God would use for the control of the neurons. [8,9]
4. Tirades from Spinoza's Graves
"One substance cannot be produced by another substance."
It is impossible that there should be in the universe two substances with an identical attribute, i.e. which have anything common to them both, hence one cannot be the cause of the other, neither can one be produced by the other.
This is the fourth proposition from Ethica by Spinoza. Quite simply, it refutes the extra-universal theory. A substance is, as Spinoza defines it, a thing which is "which is in itself, and is conceived through itself: in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception." Even if there is another substance, Spinoza mandates that we do not know it's attributes, as we live in one monist substance which is self-conceiving. If we, henceforth, say that one substance would create another substance, then the created substance would not be a substance, but a mode of the substance. There is only one substance conceivable in this world, and that substance is Nature, or the Universe.
CONCLUSIONS:
From these points (that logic is not based on God, that Substance is One, that Ontological Arguments are Unsound, and that Logical Truths do not depend on God), I mandate the resolution negated!
CITATIONS:
[1] http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/#SH2d
[2] Proslogion, Print
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missing_Shade_of_Blue
[4] https://school.carm.org/amember/files/demo3/2_logic/3logic.htm
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan%27s_laws
[6] https://www.proofwiki.org/wiki/Law_of_Excluded_Middle
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_reason#Criticisms
[8] http://carm.org/omniscience-freewill
...
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-01-05 06:39:15
| Speak Roundadmin (PRO)I thank my opponent for his round.
Standard of proof
Ultimately the concept of God is not provable in any scientific or philosophical sense. Neither side in this debate will present you with the argument that will ring down through the ages and finally convince everybody that God either exists or does not. Contrary to con's assertion, at no point in the debate have I been required to provide absolute certain proof in order to win. I simply need to provide the more convincing arguments in this debate for my position.
There are multiple valid ways to attempt to provide evidence on either side. It's not legitimate to restrict this debate to arguments from particular branches of inquiry - notably, although several of my arguments (*cough* Pascal's wager *cough*) may not be logical proofs for the motion, they are nonetheless convincing evidence to persuade people to believe the motion. To dismiss them without any further explanation other than that they're not things my opponent is interested in discussing is problematic for my opponent. He needs to provide a proper rebuttal to these points, or else I can only take them as conceded.
Descartes Ontological
My opponent has attacked the Anselm ontological but not the specific formulation of the argument that I presented, which was the Descartes ontological. Judges will note a number of differences comparing the two, most obviously the fact that the Descartes ontological does not depend on the belief in God. Con fails to engage with my case directly, but I will deal with his indirect rebuttal.
First con made a "Kantian" objection relating to two assumptions of the Anselm ontological: best of all possible worlds, and whether something is closer to perfection by existing. Two sub-points. First, neither are assumptions made by Descartes' formulation of the argument. Descartes gives us no reason not to accept that a perfect entity may exist in an imperfect world, and indeed the notion of perfection is as irrelevant to Descartes' argument as it is to the definition of God in the debate. Instead Descartes focuses on concrete attributes - for example, existence is a precondition for knowing, thus an all-knowing entity must exist. And so on and so forth. Let's focus on utopia then. There are valid arguments that this universe is a utopia, but I need not defend them, for two reasons. First, my opponent never defined what objectively the most perfect and great state in the world was. But even if he had, the argument can't be applied to the Descartes formulation - "Could a place be a utopia and not exist?" - because the answer to that is clearly yes. El Dorado is an example of such a place in fact. This can be contrasted with the "God-question" I posited earlier - "Could an entity be all knowing an not exist?" - to which the answer is no, because existence is a precondition for knowing.
Second con made a point about a priori (that means "not based on your personal experience") proofs reaching a posteriori (which means "based on your personal experience") conclusions. His essentially argument runs that only an experience of something can convince anyone of objective reality. His primary example is quite ironic, because nobody has ever seen or sensed the big bang before either. Scientists are just convinced that it happened once based on deductions from observations they've made. The entire point of logic, too, is to draw conclusions based on other premises. That's not to say it cannot be objective. If I had 5000 apples and took away 4000, I know (objectively) that I would have 1000 apples left. I've never had that many apples to try it with personally, but I still can infer it objectively from other maths I've done. Other than to say broadly that a lack of impressions is not objective, con did not justify this point, so the obvious causal link that he needs to tell us - especially in light of the fact he's intuitively wrong by example - is why. Further, how objective is our personal experience really? This is a problem for the argument because following it logically, it would mean that a personal experience of God would be valid proof of God (which is curious given the number of people who have had such experiences). Personal experiences are subjective by definition as opposed to objective. And this leads on to several related problems - how would he know that his reading of the Descartes ontological is not an experience of God, for example? So rather like we can claim to know that the big bang existed, we can use similar logic to derive that God existed.
Third point con made was "analytical proof of the existence of God must come from the definitions of the nature of reality, existence and objectivity only". I could give a shopping list of problems with this, starting with - why? He hasn't provided any reason to accept this statement is true, but merely asserted it. He didn't even support his claim that the argument was semantic. He didn't provide the three definitions he believes must govern the existence of God, and only really provided a loose analogy to an argument regarding Socrates which could be interpreted as tautological, without relating it. After all if it is from the "definitions of nature" from which God's existence must be deduced, then the Socrates argument would be perfectly correct, since "man" is part of nature. So con really has not supported this argument in any way, and I await its proper establishment. Funny how in the very next point he deduces claims "by pure reason", a contradiction of both this and the previous argument.
It so happens that there are arguments from nature for God's existence, and one of them was my Jesus argument: I believe it's formally known as the argument from witnesses to the miracles and general awesomeness of God. Apparently con didn't feel like refuting it though.
Kant Argument
My opponent has attempted to refute this argument merely by showing a few logical proofs exist, such as the law of the excluded middle. OK. What he now needs to show is that there is such a proof that does not rely in any way on God. Let's start by looking at the classicMünchhausen trilemma - every argument is ultimately either regressive (where you prove the premises of the premises of the premises of the premises etc), circular (where the premises prove each other), or axiomatic (where you ultimately just kind of accept the premises as true despite a lack of proof). As such all logic that is not circular logic must depend on something outside of logic to be the standard, solid axiom that all logic can depend on.
As a practical example of this, take the law of the excluded middle. In case you didn't know, it states everything is essentially binary - either true, or true if negated. It's generally known as an axiom. It has never been actually proven, and indeed a significant number of logicians (not just deviants) reject it or replace it with a modern variation. Some use a so-called "proof" which is really just the truth-tables of the law, which is commonly known as a tautology, which is a form of circular reasoning. Con had a related proof: his logical symbols, for the benefit of non-logicians, mean: "the law is false is interchangeable with the statement the law is true". This, however, is another axiom, which is a form of regression. So every logical proof, logically, must rest on another assumption to be valid.
Con does critique God as being that assumption using the omnipotence paradox - if God is truly almighty, he could make himself not God (though despite his ability to do so, con never shows why God would actually bother to do this) and thus refute his own existence. It's like saying can God make a rock he can't lift, and if so hasn't he made himself less almighty. The basic problem with this argument is that it assumes two things that con needs to justify: first, that God is logical. God may be the basis for a logical system but be entirely illogical himself. From a principle of illogic, the omnipotence paradox makes perfect sense. Secondly, he needs to justify that for an almighty entity, "make himself not almighty" makes sense. If so then he has the capability to be incapable (relatively, ie not almighty), making him incapable, so (from a logical standpoint) God must be incapable of being incapable (making him capable). Therefore for God to be truly almighty - remember this is all logical - he could not make himself not God - and contrary to what might be intuitive, this is actually consistent with the definition of omnipotent (while the alternative is not). Further to all that, the omnipotence paradox has exactly the same form logically (though not necessarily the same veracity) as the Descartes argument - it's just as semantic, for example. All criticisms of the Descartes argument are invalid if this point is true.
Lewis Argument
Astute readers may have noticed con switched the order around. That's fine and I'm following his framework.
What con calls irrational I think most people would better know as something that makes no sense (although whether there were no justifications to, say, racialism is a matter for debate at best). What he calls non-rational on the other hand, I would probably better term something that has not been justified (for some reason my opponent has all but conceded the non-materialist conception of reality here). He claims that our thinking might still make sense even though it has not been previously justified. This is true, but that does not mean that we have a reason to believe it. The entire point of his argument was to show that thoughts themselves can be represented as logical propositions, and that we have no reason to believe these outside of God or nihilism (the idea that nothing is true and that's fine). For any truth to be believed at all, it must be justified, similar to how con justified the mortality of Socrates (though why he did not justify it by the fact that he died I will probably never understand).
Con moves from this to saying that God controls our moral reasoning. Two issues. First, a lack of moral objectivity sounds incredibly malevolent, so that entirely fits with the God the rules want me to defend. Why would we then expect any pattern in moral objectivity? In fact if God was perfectly malevolent (which is a position I don't have to defend) then we should expect morality to not exist at all. Second, there's a difference between being the reason to trust one's thinking and controlling it. It's kinda like how I trust McDonalds tastes great (because I tasted it before), but that does not mean McDonalds controls my thinking (I hope).
Finally con argues that neuronal events would be both predictable and determined if God was real. I agree that a "single neuron exhibits different responses to repeated presentations of a specific input signal", but that does not mean that the responses are not predetermined. Con needs to prove that they're actually random. Second, the notion of God does not require fatalism. Free will is entirely consistent with the idea that God justifies beliefs, so long as multiple competing beliefs can be justified by God (there's no suggestion in Lewis' argument that the justification of God need be consistent for God to exist).
Spinoza's Argument
There are a number of problems here. First, if God is indeed the creator and conceiver of nature and/or the universe, then God is entirely consistent with Spinoza's wildly unjustified claim. Second, the argument does not refute the existence of God, but rather seeks to refute specific objective affirmations of the existence of God (this is an important distinction). Third, the argument is not proven or justified in any way. Why is it impossible that two things, formed completely independently of anything else, could be identical? I could likewise quote a Christian philosopher and use that as a counter-argument to all con's claims. Finally, my opponent misread Spinoza. He did not say we don't know the attributes of anything outside of what we have. This is evident because Spinoza was a mathematician, and numbers do not "exist" in this universe (at least not any more than God does), yet we have a very solid conception of them. He simply said that it is impossible that two things, formed completely independently of anything else, could be identical - nothing more. Con fails to relate this to the case at hand, he merely says "put simply" and then gives a totally different proposition with no logic behind it.
The resolution is affirmed.
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-01-07 23:52:15
| Speak Round18Karl (CON)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-01-12 23:53:03
| Speak Roundadmin (PRO)For some reason, my opponents keep forfeiting against this case.
Oh well. For what it's worth, I urge a pro ballot anyway.
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-01-13 21:35:06
| Speak Round18Karl (CON)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-01-18 21:36:01
| Speak Roundadmin (PRO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2015-01-23 21:36:01
| Speak Round
Judge: ZeusYoda
Judge: gree0232
Judge: dsjpk5
Judge: TheNoob
Judge: 2001bhu
Judge: Tejretics
Judge: ButterCatx
Judge: nzlockie
Judge: RXR.
Judge: Blackflag
The descartes argument differs slightly from the anselm argument btwPosted 2015-01-14 07:33:32
In the words of a fellow internet warrior, "Stop trying to recruit Kant into the ranks of the religious"Posted 2015-01-14 07:31:28
*rages*
stupid me, o well!Posted 2015-01-05 06:41:05
Stag, you are definitely confused about Kant's stance on religion. He did spend a lot of time refuting the Cosmological, Ontological and another argument for God, but at the same time, he proposed the argument as presented here as a alternative for this. He proposed this thing called religion within the limits of reason and that sh!t. If you've been doing Christian Apologetics, then you would have known this well enough. Gov. is using these arguments in a perfectly fine way, from a perspective that it is used correctly. Descartes didn't really propose the argument, just defended it (Meditation 5). Anselm proposed it in some of his works. The Lewisian Argument I do not know much about, but I know how to refute it. Some of gov.'s points are ignoratio elenchi, but apart from that, the assertion that Kant was an atheist, and all these arguments are used incorrectly, is as correct as asserting that Spinoza liked monotheism.Posted 2015-01-03 18:23:39
Well, we can debate this too StagPosted 2015-01-03 10:07:56
*cough* there is a stab in my debate roundPosted 2015-01-03 10:07:34
Admin IS using all these arguments wrong though. I spent enough time doing Christian apologetics to know that. Posted 2015-01-03 10:07:19
Kant was definitely an atheist, or he was just bs'ing himself. He made a dozen refutations of Christian theologians without one stab at arguing a god exists. Posted 2015-01-03 10:06:28
That was NZlockiePosted 2015-01-03 10:04:44
It's one specific variation of the Ontological Argument.
And of course they don't convince me either lol, my goal in the debate from here on will be simply to disprove any arguments 18Karl brings up.Posted 2015-01-03 09:55:23
Stag, Kant was not an atheist for sure. Maybe not a orthodox Christian, but at least a deist. His philosophy of religion was basically "religion within the limits of reason". The Descartes argument is not wrong. It was his P5 proof in Meditations, although it's true name is the Ontological Argument.
They don't convince me. Posted 2015-01-03 03:37:54
Aren't you the guy who campaigned me to stop people posting possible arguments in the comments section of a debate? Or was that nzlockie lol, I can't remember.Posted 2015-01-02 22:55:16
Ahhhh! All 4 of their arguments were used absolutely wrong! Especially the Descartes argument. Kant was an atheist for god's sake. Posted 2015-01-02 22:52:19
Ahhhh! All 4 of their arguments were used absolutely wrong! Especially the Descartes argument. Kant was an atheist for god's sake. Posted 2015-01-02 22:52:08
was preparing for thisPosted 2015-01-02 22:17:51
Nope, tomorrow usually means 24 hours. Bring it on!
is there a problem?Posted 2015-01-01 15:25:42
wait wotPosted 2015-01-01 15:24:58
I'll take it tomorrow if nobody else does.
Just take it now please. School starts in one month.Posted 2015-01-01 01:32:02
I will do this in a month... Just need something to be read before take this topic.Posted 2015-01-01 00:12:27
Stag, if you won't accept the def, leave so others can have the chance thnxPosted 2014-12-30 02:35:09
I will keep an eye on this debate.Posted 2014-12-30 01:56:07
But...... I do not believe god is omnipotent, omniscient, and especially not extra-universal. I really do not like generalizations of 2 billion Christian's beliefs. If we are going to debate this, you need to remove the definition. This debate is also too long for me. You would need to shorten it to three rounds and 8000 charactersPosted 2014-12-29 06:22:30