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...
Erm no, I’m saying what a definition on its own cannot prove anything exists. That’s not what a definition is.
In other words, what I'm saying is what you say I'm saying. Dictionaries are meaningless.
Gotcha, arbitrary atheist.
No, but definitions do show what I am talking about. When I'm talking about God, I'm talking about The Ultimate Reality.
I don't need to prove that The Ultimate Reality exists, if you have any doubts about the existence of this, you lack understanding.
That’s exactly how defitions work. They are human words applied to objects and things to attempt to label those things.
No matter what words you, or any other human, has decided to define God as - they are just words; a mere label, and do not show that he exists.
Clearly you didn't read the debate.
I don't need to prove that the ultimate reality exists, in fact, it is impossible to do so because if you have any doubts about its existence, you lack understanding.
It's amazing to me that people will go to such lengths to deny God that even after being revealed to be truth itself they will still deny God.
Really amazing. All they can do is fumble around while plugging their ears up going "nuh uh! No no no!"
That is not how definitions work.
We're not at a particle physics convention - we are on a debate website, where points can be allocated based whether the spelling and grammar of a debater substantially affects the readability. Half of pros sentences made no sense whatsoever - even after translation, and for the rest his excessive over use of different terms that he capitalized substantially affected the readability of the debate. This choice was extreme and utterly unnecessary - and his spelling and Grammar was markes accordingly.
You’re argument is basically that his obtuse, repeated and utterly contextually unnecessary use of capitalized terms rather than just “God” was “technically” correct, and so I should have looked past the complete unreadability of his position that was caused as a result - that makes no sense.
I would have looked past general capitalization as required by a general religious debate - but this went far and above what I could and would deem reasonable. I always give the benefit of the doubt - but pros grammar and spelling caused his position to be nearly impossible to read.
I just found another issue with your vote:
"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."
I didn't effectively rebuttal his argument? Did you miss the part where I showed his argument to be guilty of the argumentum ad dictionarium fallacy, therefore proving it false? If proving an argument false isn't an effective rebuttal, then tell me sir, exactly what is? That needs to be corrected too.
Alright cool then. I didn't read through because I'm being harassed in messages from Mopac. I have warned him multiple times to cease his messages to me, but he keeps it up with mockery and insults. I have reported him to a moderator and blocked him.
As I said, a definition is merely a label associated with something, that you “proved”, that God is defined in a particular way merely proves you have given God that label but does not prove that God has any of those properties.
We talked about that. #67 and #45. Waiting on a moderator at this point. Chill.
But again, that brings me back to the particle physics symposium analogy. If I were to attend such an event, it is likely that the speakers would be required to convey their complex ideas in a manner which would be totally "incomprehensible" to ME, but likely very clear to everyone else in the room. In that example, it is not the fault of the speakers, rather it is my own fault that I lack the necessary knowledge to comprehend what they are saying. It is hardly fair to punish the speaker because the listener lacks the knowledge needed to understand what is said.
I want you both to notice this statement in Raltar's vote:
"Aside from this, Con said nothing actually aimed at meeting his burden of proof to show that God doesn't exist."
This explicitly implies that I have a burden to prove that the god in question doesn't exist, and is used as reasoning for why he voted against my arguments. Being that I made no claim that this god doesn't exist, I have no burden of proof. His vote is therefore invalid and should be removed. This has nothing to do with whether or not he agrees with me. It has to do with valid reasoning. His reasoning is invalid. If he wants to correct his reasoning, and can reasonably show that Mopac's arguments were better(good luck with that), then his vote would be acceptable.
In comment, you didn’t argue that it is unreasonable for me to find pros choice of language unreadable - you are arguing that it is a technically correct way of writing. I understand that, and that’s the difference. Even though the language was technically correct the extent to which he did it was unnecessary and gratuitous. Even transcribing the sentences were difficult to read - hence why I asked you specific examples of what pro meant even after it was translated in just the way you suggest.
That is specifically what he is being marked down for: the unnecessary and gratuitous use of these terms in that way that substantially impacted the readability to someone like me by a large extent for no legitimate reason over other alternatives - together withfrequent examples where even performing substitution his phrasing made it completely unclear as to what he meant.
That absolutely falls under spelling and grammar.
Raltar is correct in that I capitalize these because they are names of God. These names have meaning though. Surely you know what The Truth means?
Something you and anyone who opposes my argument doesn't seem to understand is that I am not defining God into existence, this is how the concept is understood in Orthodox Theology, and it is not an English trick. This is what God is in every language.
The reason why me clarifying what God is won't be acceptable is because, like brutaltruth, accepting what God means will not be accepted by those who simply cannot accept this as being true.
It is the fallacy of invincible ignorance. It is also the only argument against God, which is not really an argument against God. It isn't really, because the argument is to make God a straw man or false god.
There is no argument against The Ultimate Reality, and that is what we understand God to be. No amount of denying this is going to change what is true.
I certainly did prove that is what God is, by using the dictionary to show that this was the definition of God, and then by showing the definition of the word definition, and then in showing how this definition is accurate to what the bible says.
Besides that, this is what the church acknowledges.
So no, you're refusal to accept these evidences is not because they aren't there or because they aren't conclusive.
As I said, your argument is that God isn't the ultimaye reality.
Invincible ignorance.
"Are you saying that his excessive capitalization should not have had any meaningful impact in the readability of the debate?"
Yes. I said exactly that in comment #49:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/309/comment_links/2416
As I attempted to explain to you, what you call "excessive capitalization" is actually the way that Christians are REQUIRED to write out proper names of God. The same way you would capitalize the 'T' in the proper name 'Tim', Christians capitalize the first letter of any name which applies to God. This includes God, He, Him, The Truth, The Light, etc, etc, etc. The purpose of this is not to negatively impact the readability of the text, but actually to clarify it, so that you always know when the author is speaking about God, even when alternate titles and terms are used in place of his standard form of address.
So it is not "excessive capitalization" as you claim, but Pro is actually required to write that way. If he were taking a graduate-level college course at a Christian university and failed to capitalize words in this manner, he would actually be docked for poor grammar for failing to do this.
As for the other issues you have, I can only repeat myself that you would understand them if you had a greater knowledge of Christian theology. If you would like to sign up for a graduate-level class in hermeneutics I can arrange that for you, but regardless, his statements remain grammatically correct.
I think you should read back a few pages - I don’t think that specific thing factored into his vote. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt - and will challenge areas where I think his vote is unfair - but I think the issue is how he’s expressing his assesment of your debate, which we’ve all agreed will be corrected.
It’s hard to distinguish between having an issue with his vote because I disagree with his conclusion, and whether I have an issue with his vote because there is a genuine error in his reasoning - and so if his vote has no errors or omissions and is well explained - even if we disagree - we have to accept it. It will balance it out in the end.
Are you saying that his excessive capitalization should not have had any meaningful impact in the readability of the debate? Are you saying that the overwhelming majority of his arguments were not phrased, presented or written in a way that made them harder to understand, or make little sense at all?
If the answer to either of these are yes: then I would vehemently disagree - and thus far you haven’t seemed to be arguing as if it is unreasonable for me to have been repeatedly tripped up by his language.
If the answer is no, then the reason why I chose to mark him down using a criteria expressly for penalizing spelling and grammar that renders a debate excessively hard to read should answer itself.
Remember:
“All the faith he had had had had no effect on the outcome of his life.”
“This exceeding trifling witling, considering ranting criticizing concerning adopting fitting wording being exhibiting transcending learning, was displaying, notwithstanding ridiculing, surpassing boasting swelling reasoning, respecting correcting erring writing, and touching detecting deceiving arguing during debating.”
“I do not know where family doctors acquired illegibly perplexing handwriting; nevertheless, extraordinary pharmaceutical intellectuality, counterbalancing indecipherability, transcendentalizes intercommunications’ incomprehensibleness.”
“Read rhymes with lead, and read rhymes with lead, but read and lead don’t rhyme, and neither do read and lead”
And
“The rat the cat the dog chased killed ate the malt.”
Are all perfectly grammatically correct - but I would absolutely expect you to vote down a debate if it was riddled with this sort of example, rather than excuse it on a technicality.
Just a side note here, anyone curious about what I have or haven't said, or what my position on the debate is, should refer back to comment #45;
https://www.debateart.com/debates/309/comment_links/2411
I agree that Con never specifically said God doesn't exist.
He and I also discussed it in these comments before the debate was over, and he directly told me that it is impossible for him to prove that God doesn't exist. He said that in comment #19;
https://www.debateart.com/debates/309/comment_links/2307
So I'm fully well aware of what Con did and (more importantly) didn't say.
As for my vote, it has been discussed with a moderator and there is a standing agreement between myself and Ramshutu that I am going to make some modifications in the near future which will better clarify a few critical points.
Exactly what is reasonable about him saying I am claiming a god doesn't exist when I'm claiming no such thing? Unless he's just stupid, he can clearly see he's wrong, so he deserves no benefit of the doubt. His vote is clearly biased, because his point has no merit. It's false.
So far, Raltar has been mature and grown up - defending his vote, and I think it’s too easy to simply dismiss someone who isn’t voting the way you want. I don’t necessarily agree with his vote - but I have no reason to believe he necessarily came up with is vote in bad faith, and I think it’s important
To give him the benefit of the doubt. I think the main thing is that he didn’t think your rebuttal was sufficient (he said that in his original too), and provided his reasons are coherent - I think it’s important to accept it; your opponent almost certainly thinks the same of me.
Like I said, I think he approached the argument in a way that won't appeal to the average layman, and I would consider it a valid criticism if you added that to a list of reasons why you think his argument failed to overcome Con's argument.
But it simply isn't a grammar issue. Nothing is wrong with the grammar. If you are going to hammer him for this, I just think it should be in the right category.
I believe that was what Wylted was getting at as well, though he worded it a little more... aggressively.
Just because one particular title (such as "The Truth") also means God, doesn't mean that all possible titles are interchangeable within the same context. The sentence doesn't become more clear if you switch the words around. The key is understanding that "The Truth" in this context has two meanings. It means "truth" as per the standard dictionary definition, but it also is a title for God, who himself is truth, which is why he capitalizes the first letter of each word. For the specific context of his argument to make sense in this sentence, you still have to refer to God as The Truth. You can't switch it out for The Light or any of the many, many, many other names by which He is known.
And I'm not saying that you personally have to understand the sentence for it to make sense. Again, it seems pretty obvious that the reason why you don't understand it is because this is a Christian theological argument, not a direct logical argument designed for a layman. This is part of the reason why if I were the one participating in the debate, I wouldn't have taken this approach. However, just because the argument is an advanced theological issue which some members of the audience may not grasp, that does NOT make it a grammatical error.
It would be as if I went to a symposium on particle physics and then criticized the speaker for his "bad grammar" because I don't know anything about particle physics. Just because I don't personally know what the speaker means when he talks doesn't make his grammar wrong if he is still speaking in a way which is correct for the topic at hand.
If a Buddhist gave you an obscure quote from his religion, would you accuse him of bad grammar, or would you stop to ask that maybe he is referencing some element of his faith that you aren't familiar with?
Your entire argument is that God exists because of the specific definition you, and others use to describe him.
If the only argument to support his existence is that you’ve defined him in a particular way, then you are defining him into existence.
This is not the same as calling a trunk with branches a tree - as this object will objectively exist whether I decide to call it a tree or not. The existence of a thing is completely unrelated to the label human beings give it.
Definitions are simply words, constructed labels that human beings give or assign to objects and entities. That’s all, they are not active properties, and what you decide to call something that is real, or fictional can never and will never alter its existence or properties.
If God doesn’t exist - he would not be the ultimate reality - no matter how many times you or anyone else said he was. As a result, simply saying he is the ultimate reality does not - in any way - imply or infer he exists.
lol just give up bro. Raltar is just trying to find reasons to vote for Mopac because he agrees with him. He has no place voting on debates.
“How do you prove that God exists? It seems absurd to think that the existence of God could be proven by using appeals to God. If you doubt God exists, do you not at least know that it is true that you have doubts? It's an unreasonable demand, to ask for proof of the truth.”
I have replaced references to “The Truth” with “God”
Could you explain what this section means? (You’re right - it’s not one sentence) I don’t know if I’ve misunderstood, he’s asserting without justification that you shouldn’t ask for proof that something is true, that truth itself exists, or that God exists, or some other option. I can’t figure out what the argument is, what is he trying to convey, and how does this fit in context. Could you enlighten me?
I completely understand the capitalization of God, and Him, of Lord: and I very much would not penalize anyone for using those terms.
However, pro used a multitude of examples: “The word”, “The Truth”, “Almighty”, “Spirit of Truth”, sometimes in his references it is uncapitalized as “truth” and “spirit of truth”, so I have to figure out whether he’s referencing Truth, truth, or made a miscapitalization, the you have the Word of Truth and the Spirit of Truth based on God the Father and the Holy Spirit - which appears pretty much nonsensical and irrelevant in terms of the debate. You have One Essence, Undivided, then you have The Most Perfect Image, even though you have an Invisible God - which is nonsensical by itself, then Orthodox Theology - that doesn’t even need to be capitalized at all, is he making a God reference? I have to stop and check. Then we have God is The Truth: which is literally God is God, and then The Truth Is God straight after - which is that God is God - flowery but incoherent sentences. Let’s throw in a Lord Over All, The Absolute, apparently The Truth is Eternal.
I cannot, with a straight face, accept that this repeated terminological tomfoolery, did not massively impact your ability to understand.
"God isn't The Ultimate Reality. That is your argument."
Incorrect. I never said "God" isn't the ultimate reality. I said you can't prove he is, and you didn't, so I win.
Now, I'm done arguing this point. From this point forward, I will only be commenting on false votes.
Like all atheist arguments about God, all you can do is make God into something that God isn't.
Your argument is weak. It is a straw man. God isn't The Ultimate Reality. That is your argument.
Yet, as the definition of definition shows, that is what God means.
So you are objectively wrong, and no amount of you accusing me of having cognitive dissonance or being defeated is going to change that. Reality does not bend at your arbitrary sense of personal aesthetics and willful ignorance.
I am not defining God into existence anymore than I am defining a tall wooden trunk with branches and leaves to be a tree.
Only in the case of God do people dispute what the dictionary says, because the dictionary makes it quite clear that denying this God is stupid and arbitrary.
I think it is worth mentioning that the reason why most of my argument is centered around identifying God as The Truth is not so much an attempt to prove God, but to show that the only argument an atheist has is to make a straw man.
There isn't actually an atheist argument against God, and when God is understood as The Ultimate Reality, it should become obvious, to those with discernment, that arguing against this God is utterly futile and downright crazy.
I have demonstrated quite thoroughly that God means the truth, and the truth stands on its own. I also pointed out the absurdity of proving the truth, because you need to use truth in order to proce that there is truth. If you don't believe in truth, how can truth be proven? I used an old argument I copped from St. Augustine... if you have doubts, you at least know that one thing is true.. that you have doubts.
Anyone who says there is no truth is crazy, and it amazes me that people actually argue about this. I am very secure that God is true and no sophistry or rhetoric can undermine this.
I believe you are correct. I know I always see the editing button when I first post a vote, but after approximately the time limit you describe it has been removed.
Either way, Bsh1 stated that he would take the vote down and allow me to repost a new one in a few hours. So problem solved.
10 mins is the time. 15 mins is edit-window for forum posts etc but 10 mins is delete-window and you can't edit a vote.
I may be wrong, maybe both are 10 mins now.
Unless I'm seriously mistaken, there is a time limit to remove or edit a vote. I no longer see those options on my screen, so I believe that time limit has passed while we have been discussing this.
I'm glad you appreciate that we are having a mature discussion about this.
That said,
"I would strongly contend that while you may 'understand' sentences such as this [...] it likely took you several reads, notes, and several minutes of squinting."
Uh, no. I understood that sentence just fine, even though it was actually several sentences that you quoted. As I said in my RFD, I don't think it was a very strong argument, but I had no difficulty in understanding his message.
If it helps to clarify things for you, "The Truth" in this passage is a direct reference to God. He is literally saying "God is The Truth."
"...that is detrimental to the reader due to the choice of capitalization..."
Again, this is a theology issue which you seem not to have knowledge of. When a Christian refers to God, we capitalize the first letter of His name, the same way we would capitalize any formal name. This rule also applies when we refer to God by a different "title" than God. For example, in a sentence where I refer to "Him" in the third-person, I capitalize the 'H' in the word Him.
The only thing I can gather from your objections here is that you don't understand that when a Christian capitalizes a word in this manner, it is intended to inform the reader that the word in question is the literal name of God. So when he capitalizes "The Truth" the way that he does, he is doing that on purpose because you as the reader are intended to understand that he is talking about God.
This isn't a grammar error. This is literally the way that Christians write.
And FYI, I messaged Bsh1 about the RFD and asked if he is open to allowing me to change it as you have requested. I will let you know the outcome.
I think the BoP can be removed (you can also remove your own vote).
If you don’t like Pros behaviour - I would suggest marking him for conduct.
I would also (for being fair), explicitly reference why you felt the remainder of cons argument (rounds 3/4/5 where Con argues that pro is defining God into existence) it seemed like you weren’t considering it.
I understand your position, I understand what you’re saying. I am saying that in the context of this debate it is not accurate.
1.) is a debate has a positive claim: “X is true, X is false” by default the burden of proof is on “pro”.
2.) if the contention is “X is true”, then if pro as Burden of proof, con does not need to show “x is false” (though he can), it is sufficient for him to show that pro “hasn’t proven x is true”.
3.) Con - in the comments - said he is no claiming “X is false”, and that is perfectly valid, as burden of proof in this case means it is sufficient for him to simply show that pro has not established “X is true”
Or in other words, if the debate is titled “Ramshutu is a parrot”, pro must prove I am a parrot, and all Con needs to do is show that pro did not prove I’m a parrot. Con is not required to show that ramshutu is not a parrot to win - though it is a reasonable Pproach.
This is a critical to understand point in terms of BoP - you can’t penalize someone for not showing ramshutu is not a parrot, when his burden of proof is simply to show the opponent did not establish that I am.
It’s a key distinction to make - and is based on the implicit default position set up in the debate resolution and terms.
I’m familiar with the topic, I’m an ex Christian. Pros choice of grammar, as explained made his debate round next to incomprehensible. His choice of capitalization on its own, would have made me mark him down on grammar as it severely impedes the readability of the debate because of his excessive overcapitalization.
I would strongly contend that while you may “understand” sentences such as this:
“How do you prove that The Truth exists? It seems absurd to think that the existence of The Truth could be proven by using appeals to Truth. If you doubt The Truth exists, do you not at least know that it is true that you have doubts? It's an unreasonable demand, to ask for proof of the truth.”
... it likely took you several reads, notes, and several minutes of squinting. This is just a nonsense sentence, that is detrimental to the reader due to the choice of capitalization, assuming proper nouns, and mixing and matching of proper nouns in weird contexts. I’ve read this 8 times, and I still don’t fully know wtf it means, and I am pretty sure that if you had a go, it would be a crap shoot.
You can’t say with a straight face, that this is a completely reasonable, grammatically fine, understandable sentence: and pros entire debate is riddled with sentences that are just as bad. Hence - he loses grammar.
Note: I appreciate that this is constructive and grown up. I am more than happy to explain every facet of my vote, and I’m glad you’re doing the same.
Ram, I'll explain it one more time;
IF Pro makes a "claim" that God exists...
BUT Con says "I don't claim gods don't exist" (as he did)...
THEN Con has not actually challenged the "claim" being made by Pro...
In which case Pro's "claim" was unchallenged due to Con never presenting any argument against it.
I suppose you can nitpick my use of the term "burden of proof" in this case, but even if that nitpick has any accuracy, I could just delete it from my RFD and then the RFD would be valid as it currently stands, based on the same criticism that Con spent the entire debate ranting about the dictionary (the "other argument you claim I didn't consider is still an argument about the dictionary).
In fact, you know what? I'll even cut you a break on this one Ramshutu.
I'm going to message Bsh1 and ask if my vote can be taken down without penalty, and I'll rewrite it without the "Burden of Proof" phrase included ANYWHERE in the debate. However, I'll still stand by everything else I said, including Con's failure to ever directly challenge the existence of God. I'll even slap him with those conduct points you mentioned, if you like.
Sound good?
If you feel the debate is unfairly setup - I would absolutely score him in conduct - I’ve done that specifically on several occasions.
Nevertheless, Pro has sole Burden of proof here; I completely agree that you must consider is argument as sufficient to meeting the basic level of proof, but it is unfair to award pro the win on burden of proof because you, personally, have decided that despite the typical rules of debate do not apply, because you have personally viewed cons actions negatively. You’re a voter, not a participant and as such can’t ad-hoc change the rules of debate because you don’t like something a debater said or did external to the arguments. That’s literally the definition of voting bias - and what the Cox is written to try and prevent.
In terms of arguments, as I mentioned: rounds 3/4 and 5 describe a specific argument you don’t reference: while you may not view it as sufficient, it formed a large part of cons ending argument - and as a result while you may not view it as sufficient, you don’t appear to have specifically considered a major part of his argument in your RFD
Brutal, I've been addressing Ramshutu this whole time.
I haven't spoken to you at all today.
Thus, I never tried to tell you anything, least of all what you believe.
If you don't like my vote, you have the option to report it and see what the moderators will do about it.
Otherwise, I would prefer you either be polite about your concerns or keep them to yourself.
Dude, stop grasping at straws. I don't believe gods don't exist. I never once said I believe that. Who are you to tell me what I believe? I am telling you that I DON'T CLAIM TO KNOW. Your vote is invalid.
Basically, your argument on the grammar issue is that Pro made references to Christian theological subjects that you aren't familiar with.
That isn't a grammar issue, that just means you didn't know what he said because you weren't personally familiar with the topic.
I know almost nothing about music. When I vote on "rap battles" on this site, I don't hammer the participants because I didn't understand the rap lyrics. But you seem to be penalizing Pro in this debate because you don't understand his theology. That isn't Pro's fault.
The words bachelor and married are concepts that do not depend on existence. They are concepts that can apply to real or imaginary things, so your rebut is ad hoc.
>Mopac never claimed his argument to be knowledge a priori.
He didn't need to make an overt claim. He argued that God is (by philosophy) necessary. The existence of a necessary being is a priori.
>Your argument commits the false equivalence fallacy.
It doesn't, as we aren't comparing bachelors to God. We are comparing the relationship between the concepts bachelor and unmarried, and God and ultimate truth. The concepts works on real things or fictional things.
For example, instead of unmarried and bachelor, it could have been "horned equine" and "unicorn".
Your dismissal was arbitrary and without logic. You did not show his position to not be a priori.
Again, inserting the word "claim" into the argument is semantics. As I pointed out, Con designed this debate from the ground up to be as difficult as possible for his opponent because he had prior knowledge of what argument his opponent was going to make.
I did not include this in the RFD (to avoid bringing outside knowledge into it), but Con specifically challenged Pro to this debate based on being unhappy that he won a prior debate against a different individual. Con saw his argument in that debate and didn't like it, so he challenged Pro to the "same" debate.
The problem is, this isn't the "same" debate. He carefully changed the title and the description in ways that he knew would make things harder on Pro. Including the word "claim" is one of the semantic ways he did that. Specifically mentioning the dictionary in the description, which he knew his opponent would do, is another way. This whole debate was carefully set up by Con merely because he wanted to spend the entire debate shouting down at Pro for using the dictionary, and that is exactly what he did.
But he, by his own admission, never said God doesn't exist. Which means he never directly challenged the "claim" being made by Pro. He nitpicked reasons why he personally doesn't like Pro's argument, but those reasons are a 'No True Soctsman' fallacy at best, and just childish bickering at worst, so he still failed to make any actual argument on his own behalf or against the "claim" made by Pro.
I’m writing on an iPhone, and it makes it very hard to proof read. For that reason, among others, I can’t effectively engage in debates at all, and would Absolutely expect if I made the errors I make in a debate, for me to be scored down for spelling and grammar - and if I did engage in a debate, I would very much make sure I proof read and validated my arguments.
As I explained, Pro was incoherent for several reasons: First using Seminary English with twisted and non-intuitive grammar obfuscated what he was saying to the point that it made it unclear how or even why what he was saying was relevant. You may have been able to tease out what he meant without more detailed Christian background - but talking about the trinity and The Word and One Essence appeared to be incoherent drivel that was neither relevant to the contention, or made any sense in that context. Then there was his capitalization. It was beyond excessive with almost every other word at one point capitalized because - as I said he repeatedly wrote descriptive prose as if a proper noun, and used a billion different examples all the way through.
This is one of the most incoherent and incomprehensible waffle word salad of a debate I have ever read on this site or elsewhere, and I am actually way more vehement of my grammar vote here than I am on the arguments as a result.
The debate contention is a positive claim, this is not about what pro or con said in the debate: but who has default burden of proof. In debates that is always the person supporting a positive claim. This is less about con evading the burden of proof, and more that this is how all debates and all logical arguments work - burden of proof is always on the positive claim. So treating con as if he has to offer a plausible reason for God not to exist - as you explain in the RFD - is unfair - as unless otherwise specified or agreed this is not how Burden of Proof works, nor, most importantly, was the burden of proof contested or objected to by Pro at any point. If pro protested, or the definitions explicitly state burden of proof - I wouldn’t treat your position as unfair. But you explicitly said con lost the debate based upon BoP.
Now, while con objected to the definition pro uses being authoritative - this wasn’t his only argument. I would submit that the first paragraph of round 3, the majority of round 4, and round 5: are not arguments that are simply “complaining about the dictionary”, and are attacking pros logic, by pointing that pros position is essentially defining God into existance: that just because God is defined in such a way doesn’t necessitate he exists in a particular way, this is a major portion of his argument that you don’t appear to have considered in your RFD either.
This isn’t a generic “you’re vote is shitty”, those are unhelpful and normally nonsense, it’s more to give you the ability to clarify your decision so that so that people don’t think you’re being unfair - I would expect anyone who had a specific issue with my vote to do the same.
Incorrect. Just because I don't claim gods don't exist doesn't mean I accept that they do. I'm an atheist. That means I lack a belief either way. I claim that I have no reason to believe gods exist, and so I don't. I have no burden of proof, because I've made no affirmative claim. Mopac is the sole bearer of the burden of proof.
And Ramshutu, while I respect your right to make your own decision about who "won" the arguments, I have to agree with Wylted that your 'Grammar & Spelling' vote was not fair in this case.
The "examples" you gave of supposedly "incoherent" passages from Pro's argument were not at all incoherent. I clearly understood what he wrote and recognized it as common examples of Christian theology.
Conversely, your own RFD had grammar and structure errors. Why were there unnecessary line breaks in the middle of several paragraphs?
For example;
"...what he has mainly done, is gone to great lengths to show people [unexplained line break]
Define God in a particular way..."
"...as the definitions themselves were mostly undisputed in this way, the sources presented had little [unexplained line break]
Material value to the debate."
I don't expect you to type up your RFD as if it was going to be published in the New Yorker, but it really isn't fair to pounce on a debater for minor grammar errors when you make similar mistakes yourself.