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...
If Con doesn't "claim" that the Christian God doesn't exist, then he has no real criticism of Pro's "claim" that He does exist.
It would be as if I said "I'm not saying your wrong... but your wrong!"
Inserting the word "claim" into the argument as a way to avoid burden of proof is just semantics. (Which is further proof of the "bad sportsmanship" which I also pointed out.)
None of which justifies the fact that Con still spent the whole debate complaining about the dictionary while saying nothing about God.
For starters, Mopac never claimed his argument to be knowledge a priori. Secondly, it does not qualify, so even if he had, it'd be false. Reason: The word "bachelor" and "unmarried" apply to the same entity in question, and that entity is one that has been proven to exist. Therefore, unmarried is logically deducted without having to prove that the entity in question exists. Such is not the case for a god that has not been proven to exist. Your argument commits the false equivalence fallacy.
Raltar's vote reported. Reason: He claims that I am claiming that the Christian god doesn't exist, and therefore I have a burden of proof that I never proved. This is false, as I do not claim the Christian god does not exist. I never made any such claim, and never will. I therefore have no burden of proof. His vote is therefore invalid.
Just for your benefit (and to explain why I didn’t consider BoP in the same way), Raltar, BoP is normally on the person making the claim (This would be Pro here), unless otherwise explicitly stated in the debate terms - so I think giving Con shared BoP is a bit unfair in this regard. I’d be totally with you if the debate terms indicated shared BoP, but I think it would be a reasonable expectation that pro should make his case, and con refutes.
You pointed out an instance of a sufficient vote that - literally - made the same arguments my vote did, I went into more detail and have been more specifically critical of your arguments.
So yeah, this is not about my vote, as much as my specific criticism and you being angry at me personally for finding your arguments non compelling, and your grammar and spelling in one debate exceptionally poor.
Like I said, if you have a specific issue with a specific vote that you would like to raise - go ahead. But so far, all I have to go on is that my grammar core is wrong because I voted for the specific reasons (with examples) that you said I should, and because for some arbitrary reason you feel my vote is “not sufficient”
Perhaps angrily chiding me for having the audacity to be critical of you, and being unable to really back your accusations up is not the best approach to take on a debate site. I’m sure relatives and friends would be a better bet for you to soothe whatever feelings I hurt.
I pointed out instances where I thought votes against me were sufficient. So it isn't that I can't handle criticism, it is just that you suck at voting, and no you did not award grammar points correctly in this debate or mine. The debate was readable it is just that what pro said was barely coherent rambling
Thanks for voting
I awarded grammar points based on my view - and multiple examples that rendered the debate incomprehensible. You’re claiming that I should only award grammar and spelling points if the debate is incomprehensible. I award grammar points not for individual or even cumulative errors but for substantive and repeated errors that substantially affect the readability of the debate.
I’m awarding points here, on your and debate, and elsewhere. on exactly the basis you’ve said I should award them - and are now claiming that by awarding them just the way you said they should be awarded, that I am not awarding them correctly.
I’m sorry that you are not mentally equipped, or emotionally mature enough to deal with criticism -but it seems your objecting more due to your own personal inability to accept criticism that I must somehow be biased or acting maliciously.
No - I’m scoring everyone equally - one of your debates was okay, one was horrendous, this one was horrendous, others are horrendous. I will vote when they are horrendous, not because I want to alter the outcome of the debate - that is purely down to your own o erinflated sense of ego. In reality, it doesn’t actually matter that much to me either way.
Now, if you actually have a specific objection to anything I’ve said - thus far it seems mostly abstract attacks rather than challenging any specific decision - I will be happy to discuss it: but otherwise I’m going to treat your claims that I’m abusing the system by voting exactly the way you have said I should be voting with the disdain they deserve.
You award grammar points incorrectly, please stop intentionally doing so to have unfair influence on the end results of a debate. Why do you think non native english speakers should be punished for innocent mistakes? Why do you think uneducated english speakers should be punished for mistakes? How do you even know if something is a mistake give 100s of different possible interpretations of how English words should be used and the constantly evolving nature of language. Are you an English professor who spends 40 hours a week studying the English language so you can stay on top of the latest developments of it? What qualifies you exactly to judge it? Why should the people I listed be punished for using it the way they do? I know you do it to cheat, because when I had 7 points for me in a debate, you came and coincidentally gave 8 points to my opponent, also not understanding how source points should be awarded. I can't stand people like you. I know this is personal and in my other debates that have not started I will have to overcome an automatic 8 points against myself, because you can't eliminate bias from your judging
Ahh excellent, so you agree that grammar in this case is perfectly reasonable to award: you are just butthurt because I scored your multiple grammatical and spelling errors in one of your debates.
I don’t often award spelling and grammar - I do it when the debate is incomprehensible, the spelling and grammatical errors are frequent and break up the flow. To award grammar - I have to give examples, and I will - but I’m not going to list the dozens upon dozens of errors that all contribute to that decision - which in your case there were.
You scored grammar points against me in a debate because I used a singular version of a word you thought should be plural, and completely ignored my opponent's grammar. I have never seen you award grammar points to a side you thought lost the debate, and you certainly award them too often. I think it is done to manipulate the end results. You want more power to effect the end result than voters such as myself who award grammar points correctly (in less than 1% of cases is the point worthy of being awarded). We aren't here to punish non native english speakers, innocent mistakes and schitzophrenics.
If you had read my vote: I scored grammar, as Pros choice of phrasing and capitalization in multiple cases throughout is points made his argument incomprehensible, and nearly impossible to read. - I have several examples. As Grammar should be awarded when the spelling and grammar is substantially detrimental to the readability of the debate - the grammar points in this respect are wholly warranted.
Stop with the grammar points, they are only supposed to be awarded to punish people who make their debate incomprehensible.
It is obvious that Pro is claiming "a priori" Knowldge. Just as the very definition of "bachelor" means unmarried, the very definition of God means ultimate truth/ultimate reality and thus must necessarily exist.
If someone used a dictionary to show how a bachelor could not be married, he would not be saying, "a bachelor is not married BECAUSE a dictionary says so", he would be saying, "The dictionary says so BECAUSE a bachelor is not married."
Con has not shown why Pro's argument is not a priori" Knowldge.
"Humans are incapable of proving that something doesn't exist."
Alright then. Debate over. Lets all go home.
"And that sounds like a false equivalency fallacy."
It's not.
"But when you are an atheist trying to prove that ***God doesn't exist***"
I'm trying to prove no such thing. Humans are incapable of proving that something doesn't exist.
And that sounds like a false equivalency fallacy.
But point being, this is still supposed to be a debate on the existence of God.
If you were a Christian debating another Christian on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, then the type of argument you are trying to structure would make an incredible amount of sense.
But when you are an atheist trying to prove that God doesn't exist, claiming that the entity you don't believe in won't allow himself to be defined by anything other than a book he supposedly didn't write which doesn't even include a definition anyway... is a needlessly convoluted way of saying you just don't believe in God.
We all know that you don't believe in God. But that isn't a convincing argument in an of itself. It comes across as more of a "Nitpick" strategy;
http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/nitpick.htm
If a hockey player said the rule book of chess is the only source for he rules of chess, and the chess player said that his mother's definition of how to bake a cake to him feels like it applies to the rules of chess, who is right? The hockey player? Or the chess player? And why?
Answer: The hockey player. Why? Because neither the hockey player, nor the chess player, made the rules, therefore neither of them have the authority to say what IS the source of the rules. Only the creator of chess(god).
It sounds like a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy to me though.
You, as an atheist, said that the Christian God can only be defined by the Bible.
Your opponent, who himself is a Christian, opened up a dictionary and found a definition of God which he feels applies to his God.
And you say that he can't do that... which becomes the 'No True Scotsman' claim.
"As you know, this is a debate over the existence of [the Christian] God. So far however, I've heard little said about God, and mostly a lot of debate over Merriam Webster. I'm starting to think we should hold a debate on the existence of Merriam Webster."
lol, right?? It's the most annoying debate I've ever been a part of, and that's saying a lot, considering I've been debating against Christianity for the better part of two decades. Mopac doesn't even realize his argument is pure semantics, and being that semantics are a logical fallacy, that in and of itself invalidates his entire argument. I could've ended the debate right there, but mostly I'm humoring him.
"In the debate description, you say "the god in question can only be defined by the Christian bible."
In the first round of the debate you said, "The Christian bible does not give any definition of the Christian god."
Crazy isn't it?
"So basically you have set up a debate where the primary subject of the debate cannot ever have a definition, because the only source you will accept as valid supposedly doesn't provide a definition, based upon your own claim."
Ah but that's not my fault. It's the Christian god's fault for only having one thing in existence with the authority to define him, and having that thing not actually define him at all. It's ludicrous, but Christians buy into it so... well, what does that say about them then?
"It also seems like you are indirectly arguing in favor of the principle of Sola Scriptura, which is a rather odd angle for an atheist to take."
Absolutely not. Faith, and practice of faith, are words which represent things that exist independent of any theological belief system. However, a religious theism such as Christianity indeed bases itself entirely upon its respective scripture, therefore it is Christianity which holds Sola Scriptora, not I. I am simply acknowledging their rules for their religion.
Look at that quote again. I said I was going to cite a book. I also said the author of the book had a critical opinion of Obama. I didn't say that I was going to cite his opinion. From the context of the conversation, a reasonable person would recall that we had been discussing a "definition" of Obama, thus inferring that I intended to cite a "definition" of Obama from the book. The reason to draw attention to the author's opinion was to show that his book is a source which doesn't meet your previously discussed requirement that sources be approved by Obama himself.
But all of that is aside from the real point here. This was only a hypothetical situation which I brought up because I'm trying to get you to elaborate on your position regarding the applicability of sources during a debate.
As you know, this is a debate over the existence of [the Christian] God. So far however, I've heard little said about God, and mostly a lot of debate over Merriam Webster. I'm starting to think we should hold a debate on the existence of Merriam Webster.
In the debate description, you say "the god in question can only be defined by the Christian bible."
In the first round of the debate you said, "The Christian bible does not give any definition of the Christian god."
So basically you have set up a debate where the primary subject of the debate cannot ever have a definition, because the only source you will accept as valid supposedly doesn't provide a definition, based upon your own claim.
It also seems like you are indirectly arguing in favor of the principle of Sola Scriptura, which is a rather odd angle for an atheist to take.
To quote you: "As in, you wouldn't let me cite a book by another author who had a negative ***opinion*** of Obama?"
If you aren't citing opinions, then don't say you're citing opinions.
As to your question: Any source that isn't him would obviously need to be verified somehow as true. Only an idiot believes something is true when that supposed truth hasn't been verified to be true.
Hold on, you are jumping ahead. We aren't citing opinions, we are trying to "define" Obama.
Now, you seem to be saying that you would only accept "definitions" of Obama if they came from Obama himself, or a source with which Obama has personally agreed, such as his wife.
I'm asking, if I were to cite an expert political source from a book that provides a "definition" of Obama, but was from a source that Obama himself wouldn't personally agree with, how would you respond?
The bible says most people will burn in hell. This doesn't sound all loving to me.
To what end? Opinions are utterly irrelevant in a debate of facts, so I would say go ahead and cite as many as you wish, as they are of no consequence to either of our arguments.
But you would insist that any source used to "define" Obama be 'Obama-approved' in some way? As in, you wouldn't let me cite a book by another author who had a negative opinion of Obama?
I would not insist that Obama's "memoir" is the only source usable to define him, because that memoir wouldn't be the only thing in existence with the authority to do so. For example, Obama himself would be a valid source. Michelle Obama would be a valid source(if Obama confirmed her definition of him being true, or if her words about him were verified somehow). However, the term "African American" has nothing to do with Obama, because Obama isn't from Africa. So, to answer your question: Yes, I would "scold" you if you attempted to use the term "African American" to describe Obama, but not for the reasons you just presented.
Brutal, Let me ask you this;
Obama wrote a memoir, right? So Obama gave us a book that "defines" who he is... (sort of...?)
But if we were having a debate about Obama, would you scold me if I looked up "African American" in the Dictionary, insisting that only Obama's memoir could be used as a source?
Leprechauns aren't defined to be "The Ultimate Reality".
Lol
I confined the debate to what the reality of it is for the sake of argument. No need to waste rounds coming to an agreement on something that is an undeniable reality. That reality is: The god in question here is the Christian god. Because of that, only the Christian bible has the authority(given by this god itself) to define this god. Not a dictionary, not any other person nor book, but the Christian bible alone. Mopac likes to argue semantics so he doesn't have to get into the "meat and potatoes" of an argument. It's an annoying avoidance of the purpose of this debate that I wish to do away with before it even begins. However, it seems Mopac has ignored this rule and continued with his useless semantic arguments. I'm not forfeiting. I'm biding my time so that I can thoroughly destroy him at his own game.
You might as well forfeited your round because when you stopped at the intro, you ignored everything I said that proves those definitions accurate.
I'm on a 15 at work now, but when I post my next round you are going to get a whole lot more scripture.
And after that, you are going to regret dismissing my use of the dictionary. You certainly did not trap me, I read the description before I accepted.
I think you will find that this debate will not be as easy of a win for you as you had anticipated.
It's ridiculous on multiple levels actually, because there are thousands of years worth of writing in the orthodox church from saints, but he wants to ignore everything from that in favor of simply the scripture.
Well, actually, the dictionary definitions are accurate to the God of Christianity, and that makes BrutalTruth's non argument invalid. His argument, like all atheist arguments, is simply to make God something other than what God means.
And scripture does support this assertion, so BrutalTruth might as well have forfeited a round.
Mopac agreed to be in a debate where the description says only the Bible and nothing else is to be considered pertinent on the subject. So how can you then demand Mopac to prove claims in the Bible true beyond it when you're the one who constrained the debate via your description?
Well.....
That's a deep subject.