The Claim That The Christian God Exists
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 5 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Pro claims that the Christian god exists. Pro will argue for that claim. Con will argue against that claim.
Mopac is Pro. BrutalTruth is Con.
Pertinent Information: The god in question is a Christian diety. Therefore, the god in question can only be defined by the Christian bible. Any sources used(including, but not limited to, dictionaries) must be definitively consistent with said bible's definition of said god.
- The existence of paper
- The existence of the material used to bind the book (leather, for example)
- A being capable of making paper
- A being capable of making the material used to bind the book
- A being capable of binding together paper with the material used to bind the book
- The existence of ink
- A being capable of creating ink
- A being capable of using ink to create text
- The existence of a language
- A being capable of writing said language on paper with ink
- God is spirit (John 4:24)
- God is light (1 John 1:5)
- God is love (1 John 4:16)
- God is a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29)
- Knowledge a priori
- Knowledge a posteriori
Christianity, at its core, is Monotheism. That is, the belief in One Supreme Being(1) as being worthy of being called God. The Existence(2) highest in authority(3) as understood in Orthodox(4) Christian theology(5) is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality(6). What that means is The best, most extreme, basic, fundamental, reality that is the source and cause from which everything arises, incapable of division and separation(7).
We are debating the existence of the Christian god here. The only sources my opponent has used are several English dictionaries, none of which are endorsed by any Christian religion as having the authority to define, nor describe, the god of the Christian religion. That being said, my opponent's entire premise is rendered false, and, by proxy, their entire argument.
As for the rest of my opponent's argument: They claim that the Christian god exists because it is "the truth." My opponent references the Christian bible with these claims. However, my opponent offers no evidence nor proof of the Christian bible's claims being true, thus again their argument is false. Let me make it very clear how this works: My opponent is the one making the claim, thus the burden of proof is theirs. One needs to do more than quote a book to prove an entity exists.
What my opponent has done, with their arguments and references, is prove that the Christian bible claims that the Christian god is "the truth." I have gone over my opponent's argument over and over, just to make sure I'm not missing anything, and have been unable to find where my opponent specifies what this "truth" is. There are many truths in the world. For example: Fire is hot, ice is cold, trees are mostly green, metal is hard. These are all truths, proven by the empirical observation of tangible reality. What truth is my opponent claiming this god is? All truths? For the sake of argument, let's assume that: My opponent is claiming that the Christian god embodies all truths in existence, and is the source of all these truths. With that I ask: Where is the proof? The fact remains that a book, bible or dictionary or any other book, alone does not serve as evidence nor proof. My opponent has proven that a book says the Christian god is the truth sure enough, but where is the proof of this claim being true? Before one can prove that the Christian god is truth, one must first prove the Christian god even exists, for something that does not exist cannot be anything at all, truth or otherwise. We are therefore right back to square one.
As one can see, the Mirriam(SIC) Webster dictionary says that a leprechaun is a mischievous elf that hides treasure. Because this dictionary acknowledges this, leprechauns must exist, right?
b: an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
God is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, which by definition exists.
After reading this debate several times, I feel baffled. Con elects not to challange the validity of Pros claim that the the truth or ultimate reality is God, and therefore God exists by definition. To deny that as truth would be intellectually suicidal, rendering cons entire argument pointlessly untruthful, so I have to say I am astounded that they made absolutely no counter arguments to how Christianity views God in order to place a more challenging burden of proof onto Pro throughout the entire debate, except for the 4 descriptions of God which don't support cons case that God must be an entity, and therefore evidence should be physical. What I am left with is weighing the unchallenged claim that the Ultimate Reality exists, with the uncited claim that God is an entity of spirit which creates things, therefore requiring Pro to present evidence that one can touch, taste, hear, see, or smell to prove God's existence, like for example, reality.
At the end of the debate Con contends that Pro has committed a fallacy by defining God into existence. This is clearly not the case, as Pro has supported with citation and without refute that Christianity views God as the Truth. Con attempted to define God out of reality by contending that God is not actually held as the Truth, but is the intellectual idea of truth, so Pro had to explain that the Truth actually means what truly is, "I AM That I AM"
"They "prove" this by showing how a dictionary says it, and the Christian bible agrees with the dictionary."
-Con
Con actually concedes Pros demonstration, that the ultimate reality being God is consistent with the Christian Bible. Why Con? You could have argued the interpretation of the Bible, but chose not to. If God is the ultimate reality, and that exists, than God exists. That's what Pro has demonstrated is taught by christianity.
Con explains that God existing would be "a posteriori" proof-requiring as opposed to an a priori given, especially if we are to ascertain it to be the Christian one as opposed to that of other religions.
The fascinating part of this, to me, is that Pro doesn't say God is a priori, he actually amps it up further back the other way by saying God is not even a 'given/assumed truth that must be' but is in actual fact the supreme essence of truth in itself or something along that line.
Con completely decimates Pro in Round 4 but had already been successfully building up this case and chipping away at Pro's case to that point such that I feel it wasn't bad conduct or poorly times new-point-raising time to finish Pro off once and for all. Con wins by the following:
"Truth isn't a thing. It is an intellectual idea. If this world has a creator, that creator can only be a thing, as how could an intellectual idea create anything? Only an entity has the ability to affect the physical world, therefore if this god exists, and it is indeed the creator of all things, or even the creator of just one thing, then it is an entity, and an entity is not an intellectual idea, therefore an entity is not "truth." It really doesn't matter how many books define an entity as "truth," an entity's being is incompatible with the idea of what truth is.
I conclude that unless my opponent can either prove that an intellectual idea can create something/affect the physical world, or prove that an entity can be an intellectual idea, their entire premise is false, and they would have to prove that this god, indeed an entity, exists."
^^ Pro NEVER came close all debate to taking on Con's line of thinking or logical processing nor did Pro defend against this attack in his R4 (Pro goes second in this debate) or R5. Pro keeps explaining how the Bible describes God, the father, as the supreme truth and how the son is the 'word' and the ghost is... The GHOST OF TRUTH?? Did Truth die and become The Holy Ghost? I didn't grasp that one.
Anyway, Con wins due to the quoted section undeniably, in a direct and logically brutally-defensive manner lead Pro to fight against an impossible formation to fight against unless Pro were to explain that we are living in a simulated reality (like in the Matrix) whereby the 'real reality' is this God itself and absolutely nothing but God exists but to prove this is so demanding on Pro he'd lose anyway given how well Con was doing so Con won an unloseable debate and I feel bad for Pro but Pro really, really was underperforming even for being on the unwinnable site.
Officially, this was a debate to argue about the existence of [the Christian] God. However, if one looks closely at the majority of arguments offered by Con, as well as the debate description which was written by Con, it becomes obvious that the intended objective of this debate was something else entirely. Con alleges, both in the debate description as well as in his opening arguments, that Christians may ONLY use the Bible to "define" God. Aside from this, Con said nothing actually aimed at meeting his burden of proof to show that God doesn't exist. Con spent the entire debate scolding Pro for using a source other than the Bible as part of his argument.
If Con was a Christian debating a Catholic on the topic of Sola Scriptura, then this approach would have made a lot of sense. But when an Atheist is debating a Christian on the existence of [the Christian] God, it mainly just comes off as bad sportsmanship by attempting to block your opponent from using sources which you know in advance are likely to be called upon. Furthermore, it is also a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, by inferring that Christians are supposedly limited to using the Bible alone, when entire branches of the Christian faith (notably Catholics and Eastern Orthodox) specifically follow a doctrine which allows them to draw upon non-Biblical sources to construct their theology. As such, this mainly comes off as an attempt to hamstring his opponent without offering any actual argument of his own.
Regardless of the problems with this approach, Con sticks to it rigidly throughout the entire debate. In his opening arguments he even claims that the Bible doesn't provide a definition for God. Although this claim could probably be debated in an of itself, the fact that Con brings it up points out another contradictory way in which his strategy is poor sportsmanship; He is trying to limit his opponent to using a single source which he claims doesn't even define the topic of the debate!
While Con makes it obvious how hard he worked to prevent his opponent from using multiple sources, this expended effort seemed to distract him from remembering (or gave him an excuse to ignore) his own requirement to present an argument for why God doesn't exist. As such, he never presented any argument against the existence of God, even wasting an entire round of the debate citing a dictionary definition of a Leprechaun as part of his attempt to deny his opponent access to sources outside the Bible.
Conversely, Pro stuck to his own guns and cited from both the Bible and a dictionary definition of God, which identifies God as "the ultimate reality." Pro draws a connection between the Biblical scriptures which describe God as truth and the dictionary definition, pointing out that they do not contradict each other, but actually support each other. Pro therefore argues that God is truth itself.
I'll agree with some of the critics that this is not a terribly strong argument when presented alone. If I were participating in this debate, I would only use this as a minor argument used to buttress a series of other stronger arguments, if I used it at all. However, it still remains true that it IS an argument, even if a weak one. And Con never provided an effective rebuttal of this argument, other than to continuously complain that his opponent can't use the dictionary through the aforementioned 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.
In summary, Pro edged out a narrow victory on this one in my eyes. Pro presented one weak argument. Con only attempted to make a rebuttal of this argument by (fallaciously) claiming that his opponent shouldn't be allowed to make it. But Con was so busy railing against Pro's argument, that he failed to present any argument of his own. In a contest between a weak argument and no argument, the weak argument still wins.
con uses the bible to define god in round one as spirit, light love etc.. This is not ever offerred a rebuttal, and explained that proof must come from empirical evidence. pro never refutes this or offers empirical evidence. Pro offers another definition of God "The Truth", but If God is merely the truth than he doesn't exist at all. It would be like me saying God is a shoe and then asking somebody if they are trying to deny my shoe exists. It's dumb and given that con's definition of God is never refuted I can't just accept pro's definition. If I did blindly accept con's definition he would still need to prove ultimate truth has consciousness and that it actually exists. Con pretty much points out these same problems. Honestly much of pro's arguments sounded like the reamblings of somebody with schitzophrenia
Arguments: When reading this, I had the same problem as con, I found it very difficult to really disentangle the specifics of pros actual argument due to pros rambling and at times somewhat incoherent style.
At its core, pro appears to be arguing that God is defined as the ultimate truth, as the ultimate truth is defined as existence (or defined in terms of existence), and so God must exist. This appears on its face to be an incredibly poor argument, akin to “defining God unto existence”. The majority of his argument in all rounds is either this contention, or trying to use Biblical quotes to support this contention.
I don’t think either pro or con contest these definitions inherently, but as con points out in round 3, 4 and 5, just because Christianity and pro and humans have decided to define God in this way doesn’t mean he necessarily exists. It simply proves that Pro is capable of defining God in such a way that the definition implies he exists.
In other words, rephrasing Cons rebuttal in rounds 3/4/5, it is possible to define ANYTHING in a way that the definition implies it exists, but that doesn’t itself show that the thing exists. Cons patient explanation of that in his final three rounds pretty succinctly summarized this. I don’t really think pro got a decent handle on what con was actually arguing: as his rebuttal mainly consisted of reiterating his initial claim.Cons leprechaun argument was a good example of what pro was doing in general, but I felt it much weaker than it could have been - as it doesn’t directly compare the definition as truth.
Despite pro saying several that he has “demonstrated” that God is “The Ultimate Reality” the major central premise of pros argument - what he has mainly done, is gone to great lengths to show people
Define God in a particular way - that he exists is comprehensively unproven and unsupported by anything Pro said - and indeed it appeared in pros rebuttal in round 4, that he didn’t fully grasp the distinction between defining something as existing, and it existing as con was pointing out.
Cons rebuttal, while short, was devastatingly effective, because he shines a bright light on the underlying fallacy that Pro is making throughout.
As a result, con exposes that pros position is vacuous and unsupported very effectively.
Conduct: tied - but we warned with statements like this: “if Instigator continues to use a straw man, false god, or lying vanity in the place of The God of Christianity, which is THE TRUTH, he will be guilty of the fallacy of INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE(2) and there is no argument I could possibly make that would be sufficient enough for instigator to accept his argument as being invalid.” Flowery insults are still insults don’t call your opponent a liar, or ignorant out of no-where. If this was any worse, or I found another example elsewhere in your argument, I would have awarded conduct to con.
Spelling and grammar. Pro was rambling and incoherent throughout this entire debate. It was a challenge to read through everything he said, and an even greater challenge to understand it. Pros style, grammar and structure was at times nonsensical with Statements such as:
“In fact, nothing about Christianity will even make sense without this understanding. Of what profit is it to strive for dispassion and the conquering of the lusts of mind in flesh? Why not just live a life of bestial hedonism? Because if you love THE TRUTH, living for the sake of vain indulgence is in opposition to this as it makes you blind to reality.”
“So if The Most Perfect Image of God is Truth, and with The Spirit of Truth we know God through this Image, what does that mean? It means that God is THE TRUTH AS IT TRULY IS, and this is expressed through the doctrine of The Trinity.”
These make next to no sense in the context of the debate, they are cluttered and unclear and were not isolated cases: with the majority of statements made by pro adding up to make it feel like most of pros content is indecipherable word salad.
Pro’s continual and zealous over capitalization of literally every phrase he decides to attribute to God (see the second quotes comment), combined with his frequent and repeated use of different terms to apply to God that he decides to capitalize were so egregious that it almost made his entire argument unreadable.
Sources: tied. This debate was more logical than factual. Scriptural sources would count if a matter of scripture was in contention, or had supported a specific factual claim (such as x happened), but as the definitions themselves were mostly undisputed in this way, the sources presented had little
Material value to the debate.
Con could have won with the same argument on sources, if he had reinforced his main arguments, with paraphrased quotes or sources (such as a critique of this ontological argument), but as he didn’t, neither sides argument was implicitly bolstered by sources.
Cue Angry PMs...
You won't accept that God is what God is.
The spirit of truth is not in you, that is why you can't see God The Father through The Son.
My argument isn't to define God as reality.
I didn't define God. The Church understands God as The Ultimate Reality.
I am making no innovation.
Why is that important? Because the faith isn't making up a bunch of stuff and calling it God.
Your argument is totally invalid and untrue because you don't understand what I'm saying.
And I'm not ignoring anything, you don't understand the concept of God so you don't know what the concept is pointing to.
What’s your logic? As I have been saying for dozens and dozens of posts now:
What you are doing, is defining God as reality, and then saying as reality exists, God exists.
Reality exists, but we can’t tell if reality is an entity, that it has a mind, and creative reality. Because of that, we can’t tell whether reality has all the properties of God - and therefore whether God exists.
So defining God as reality is a pointless and meaningless exercise because of all the other properties of God you happen to ignore
This is the massive problem you keep ignoring in preference to the incoherent rants about how I’m not accepting The truth. No - you’re logic is idiotic and you don’t know how definitions work.
What is my logic? That words mean what they mean?
You don't understand my faith, you are very much in the dark.
You can't even accept that God means The Ultimate Reality, and if you can't accept this, how can you understand anything else?
You don't know my faith, but you think you do. That has rendered you unteachable. Your confidence is misplaced. You are as a 2 year old arguing with a grown man.
You make it all arbitrary, which is a shame.
There is One Absolute Truth, and countless lies. You would rather rest on one of the many lies than come to knowledge of The Truth.
To your own detriment.
No, I’m rejecting your stupid logic which fails at a most basic logical level.
Not only that, you’re argument utterly fails on a theological basis too: your entire position completely links the existance of the supreme being, and divine creator of the entire Cosmos directly to the specific words that human beings have decided to attribute to him, and the meaning that those humans have assigned. Every man of learning and faith should rightly laugh at this, as it denigrates both the power and majesty of God by making his existence dependent on words..
You rejecting thousands of years of church tradition doesn't invalidate what it teaches.
Unfortunately no. You’re making some major logical errors, and appear to simply cling to the same faulty argument.
Defining God as Reality doesn’t make God exist.
Reality exists - but does the reality that exist have a mind? Is the reality that exists an entity? Does it have creative ability?
No.
So by definition reality existing does not prove an entity with a mind and creative ability exists - therefore it does not prove yor Hod exists.
Your arguments are the type of delusional nonsense that can be expected from someone who doesn't believe in truth.
And if you deny my God, you don't believe in truth.
You really think I'm going to be swayed by someone who has embraced delusion?
Blasphemy against the spirit of truth is not one that I can be charitable towards.
Your entire argument is to not accept what I'm saying, which means you aren't talking about the same thing.
I am not making a fallacy.
You are commiting the fallacy of invincible ignorance, as well as a straw man.
You say I'm obsessing over definitions, but that is because you want to talk about a god I don't believe in while pretending you are arguing against my God.
Think about it for a second, how you must look from my perspective, assuming I believe everything I am saying is true. Realize you are wasting your time if you think I am going to compromise on my most deeply held convictions, that come from true knowledge. You have no authority whatsoever, and don't understand what I believe in.
You're being arrogant.
But you could try.a different approach, which is to make an attempt at honestly understanding what I'm saying instead of trying to conform what I am saying to your superstitions.
There is no question that God is The Truth, because that is what God means.
Try again.
If God doesn’t exist, he can’t be “the truth” - whether you, the bible, or the dictionary define him as the truth or not.
You're irrationally obsessed with definitions as if they prove anything in this regard - Chewbacca doesn’t exist, no matter how I define him - which illustrates perfectly how faulty your logic is.
But let’s say I accept your premise that God is Reality - though no dictionary defines him as such. The reason you’re entire position falls apart is that while reality exists - God is defined as more than just reality.
God, is Reality, and an entity, and has a mind of some kind, and has motivation of some kind, has intent of some kind, can exercise creative force in some degree.
That’s the error. One of The properties of God exists - good for you. Now show me the direct evidence that allllllll the other properties of God exist. If you can’t do that, you’re not proving God exists, you’re basically arguing that reality exists and you are desperately trying to inject all this other nonsense.
It’s exactly the same error with Chewbacca - furry creatures exist. Chewbacca is a furry creature - but Chewbacca is also fictional, 8 feet tall, and big into interstellar travel and smuggling and existed a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away - do those properties exist - no.
Chewbacca and God definitions fail for the same reason.
My God is literally the truth. When you and brutaltruth say my God doesn't exist, you are saying there is no truth.
Having eyes you are blind. Having ears you are deaf. Having a mind, you lack understanding.
Neither you or brutaltruth care about what is true. If you knew the truth you'd recognize what I'm saying.
I hooe that one day you two come to acknowledgment of the truth.
If God doesn't exist, then why does Ice float on water, despite Ice being a solid and solids usually being less dense then liquids? And what would happen if it didn't float above water? Then fish would die and many civilizations that survived off of fish would die as well.
Why would anyone ever debate if they didn't value truth? My mind can be changed quite easily. All one has to do is prove me wrong.
If you can find me a single person on this site whose mind can be changed on something
Substantive, I’ll go argue with them :P
Why are you still arguing with him dude? Nothing you say is going to change his mind. He embodies the definition of cognitive dissonance.
And you just nailed the rebuttal of your own point.
You defined “God” as “the ultimate reality”.
by this reality, An ultimate reality lead by Vishnu, Allah, or simply has no God at all.... all these things could be said to be “God”, using this definition.
Ok, since you don't know how definitions work, I'll give you a lesson...
You defined "chewbacca" as "a furry creature".
By this definition, a dog, a cat, a bear, a racoon, a particularly hairy man... all these things could be said to be a chewbacca.
God is defined as "The supreme or ultimate reality"
So if the image you have in your mind of God is not ultimately real, this image does not fulfill the definition of God, and so you are not actually talking about God.
So do you understand how definitions work now?
Your argument hinges on Chewbacca - the famously furry creature from Star Wars - not being furry?
Bahahaha
What dictionary did you pull Chewbacca from?
You made it up.
Here are some definitions of the word "arbitrary" for you, courtesy Merriam-webster..
"Based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something."
"existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will"
lol which definitions do you think I’m making up? That Chewbacca is furry? Or that furry creatures exist.
Ultimate Reality exists - and God is defined as ultimate reality - therefore God exists.
Furry creatures exist - and Chewbacca is defined as a furry creature - therefore Chewbacca exists.
Your logic is so bad, that it means Chewbacca exists... calling me an idiot doesn’t make your logic any better.
You are making up definitions.
You proved nothing except your own arbitrariness.
You're an idiot.
I just “proved” Chewbacca exists using the same logic you are using to prove God existsz
If I can prove a fictional being exists using your logic - your logic is wrong.
The bible isn't God.
I'm not twisting anything. You are the one striving about the meanings of words.
I know what my church teaches. You are not going to overthrow thousands of years of church tradition through semantic fumbling and ignorance.
You are wrong, and you are wrong because your premise is "God exists? No! Anything but that, this can't be true!"
@Mopac
The bible contradicts it's self a lot.
I posted the 108th comment. This means that it is tied for the most number of comments on Debateart as of right now(https://www.debateart.com/debates/309)
A definition isn’t a logical fallacy; twisting the definition in the way you do to argue something exists IS a logical fallacy.
Chewbacca is a furred animal - furred animals exist - Chewbacca exists.
Using the same logic you are using to prove God, I can prove Chewbacca exists.
A definition is not a logical fallacy, it is a way of making clear what we are talking about.
God is The Ultimate Reality.
There is simply no way I can overcome YOUR fallacy of invincible ignorance.
“Ultimate Reality” exists - this is true - reality exists.
“Creatures with fur” exists - this is also true - we see creatures with fur.
God is defined as the ultimate reality. This is true - this is how God is defined
Chewbacca is defined as a creature with fur. This is true - this is how Chewbacca is defined
As God is defined as the ultimate reality, and ultimate reality exists - God exists by definition.
As Chewbacca is defined as a creature with fur, and creatures with fur exits - Chewbacca exists by definition.
The logic between the two is identical, and neatly points out how logically fatuous your argument is. The reason this argument doesn’t prove Chewbacca exists is the same reason yours doesn’t prove God exists.
My grammer is fine, and my arguments are lucid.
If you are having trouble understanding, it is probably because you take me to mean something other than exactly what I am saying.
It's a very aimple argument that can be summed up in a sentence.
There is only One God, and that God is the very truth itself, reality as it truly is.
If you don't believe that there is a reality as it truly is, you are crazy. Even atheists understand this. Their problem is that they can't reconcile their superstitions about God with how God is actually understood by the church.
So the only atheist argument is to nake God something other than God.
The purpose of definition is to make clear what I am talking about.
I am talking about the ultimate reality.
It is not arbitrary.
You are being arbitrary, and because of that we aren't talking about the same thing.
You are using a straw man because you don't understand how definitions work.
Straw man
Invincible ignorance.
Until you accept the definition, you are wrong and proving the point I made in my arguments that the only atheist argument against God is to make God something other than God.
I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, ironically being God's advocate at the same time.
If god doesn't exist, why does Ice float above water? And what would happen if it didn't freeze in this way?
Well actually I was highlighting that your grammar and spelling hindered the understanding of your posts, even when I put perfectly unambiguous terms in the place of the ambiguous terms you used.
There was question about whether or not grammar affected Pro's performance; it did.
The issue is not that I don’t understand the argument you are making, the issue is that the argument you’re making doesn’t prove God exists, or even comes close.
You’re arguing that God exists because of how you - and others defined God. That’s not how definition works.
Reality exists.
Creatures with hair exist.
Arguing that because God is defined as ultimate reality -mhe must exist is exactly the same as arguing that’s chewbacca exists because he is a creature with hair and creatures with hair exist.
It doesn’t work that way
You are establishing that you don't understand what I'm saying.
It's really simple.
God is The Truth.
The concept of Reality as it truly is would be The Image, The Son.
Reality as it Truly Is would be is The Father
To accept that the father and the son are one is only activated and made true with the spirit of truth, or the holy spirit.
Father, son, holy spirit.
It is an acknowledgment that we as created beings use the medium of creation to relate to God. That being the case, God dwells among us as sanctifies all of creation.
Without this, you have the various gnostic heresies which damn everything in creation, because they don't accept that The Word of God, which is God, became flesh and dwells among us.
Without this, it also means we are totally detached from God. But we aren't, God is with us.
No, your premise is "God cannot exist"
So there is no argument that will convince you.
Even when The Truth itself is literally God.
How can I convince that God exists if you won't even accept what God means?
You qant me to prove your superstitious understanding of God is God.
I can't do this.
And so, until you say That The Ultimate Reality exists, and this is what God means, I will not recant my opinion that you are an idiot.
End of story. Begone from me, wicked one.
So if The Peanut Butter of a Sandwich is Flavor, and with The Jelly of Flavor we know a Sandwich through this Peanut Butter, what does that mean? It means that a Sandwich is FLAVOR AS IT TRULY IS, and this is expressed through the doctrine of The Trinity: The Peanut Butter, The Jelly, The Sandwich.
So what am I establishing?
No, your argument is illogical and atrocious. you are attempting to define God into existance. Indeed, you are doing a horrible job at convincing me - and anyone because your argument is incredibly poor.
If you come up with a logical, or reasonable argument then we can talk - but what you’re doing here is effectively saying that you can prove God exists, because you’re saying god is reality and so must exist. Logic doesn’t work that way.
I'm not going to throw away thousands of years of church tradition just because you want to arbitrarily reject what God means in order to justify yourself.
You have baggage. You are superstitious. You don't want to believe. I am not going to go theough all this for no profit.
The Ultimate Reality is God.
That is that.
You almost had it!
Just because you say my mother is 2000lbs, doesn’t make it true.
Just because you say God is “the ultimate reality”, doesn’t make that true either!
This is the massive flaw I everything you’re saying that you just don’t understand.
Just because you, and any number of other people have “decided” that the word God means “Reality” doesn’t mean that’s God exists - because tomorrow a bunch of people could get together and decide that’s not the word means - God wouldn’t cease to exist then, would he.
Reality obviously exists, but that doesn’t mean God exists, because God is more than just “reality” - even if you accept your definition, he’s an entity, with an opinion, a mind, powers, etc. That’s the hilarious error you make:
The truth is that your mother is 2,000 lbs
Your mother isn't 2,000 lbs, and this statement is false.
Therefore, the Truth doesn't exist.
^
Your argument, which amounts to, because people say things about the truth that aren't true that means there is no truth.
I'll retract my statement that you are an idiot if you admit that The Ultimate Reality, which is what the word God means, exists.
The Ultimate Reality exists.
You're an idiot.
I understand, it’s just wrong.
A fictional God in a series of books is also defined as Ultimate Reality. The God defined in Good Omens is the Ultimate Reality too. The God in Monty Othtons Holy Grail is defined as the Ultimate Reality.
All of those things share the same definition as your example - yet they don’t exist.
You - a human being - saying that God isn’t the ultimate reality doesn’t mean he exists.
The ultimate reality isn't an intellectual idea, it is what it is.
The whole point of the trinity is to make this clear.
I'm not talking about an idea, I'm talking about what that is.
Is an idea the ultimate reality?
No understanding at all, I tell you.
You are deserving of mockery.
The overarching maker in the wheel of time was defined as The Ultimate Reality. That God is fictional.
Shouting at me at how good your definition is doesn’t make your God exist.
Definitions make clear what we are talking about.
What does The Ultimate Reality mean?
Think about that.
You literally just claimed it.... again.
No one is claiming that.
Now look at what the definition says.
The Ultimate Reality.
*throws hands up in the air*