Vote on debate

Author: Mopac

Posts

Archived
Total: 242
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
A vote for con is the vote "There is no truth, reality doesn't exist"

People don't know what "Truth" and "The Ultimate Reality" means, or they don't know that a definition demonstrates what you are talking about.

When I say "God" I literally mean The Truth. I mean The Ultimate Reality. 

No, I am not defining things into existence, I am clarifying rlexactly what it is I am talking about. The only atheist argument is to make God something else.


And well, if you need evidence of God, there is something wrong with your thinking. How would you ever even get evidence for God if you didn't believe in God? It is self defeating like depression. The Ultimate Reality obviously exists. And if the entire world voted otherwise, it would not change the facts.

I spent a lot of time putting my argument together. I've had so many votes removed from my debates that the people have beem discouraged from voting. I don't think it's right that votes in my favor get removed while votes that are clearly uninformed and false against me stand. I tied in a debate with RationalMadman because 2 of the voters didn't acknowledge that we used the same sources. Mighty lame.

What is the point of me staying up into the AM to construct these arguments and source them thoroughly when the only thing someone has to do in order to win a debate is adopt an attitude of invincible ignorance while tearing down straw men?

So is there anyone who will actually read this debate and see how many concessions my opponent made, how the entire debate he was back peddling and on the ropes, and was slowly descending into more nonsensical arguments?

Does anyone have understanding at all? The Truth exists even if the entire world disagreed with it. There is no argument against The Truth.

Well, if you know that a definition is intended to make specific what we are talking about, and you have enough sense to know that The Ultimate Reality" must exist, please vote!

If not, what is the point in me trying to make a case that isn't even understood? Well, I won't be deterred, because I know what I'm talking about. Popular opinion doesn't make truth.


Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
Remind me tomorrow if I don't have time tonight.  
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Plisken
Reminded 
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
I don't vote on debates but I agree with the outcome.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
If the entire world voted and said "The Truth doesn't exist" they would still be wrong.




secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
No one said that. They only said you don't know the truth and they are right as far as I can tell.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
The Truth exists.

That is what God is.


The end result of this debate is that the truth doesn't exist.


Really, the only argument is "nuh uh! Lalalalalalalala"

secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
The only argument your opponent made was that you don't know the truth. Go back and read his arguments again.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
His argument was a straw man coupled with invincible ignorance.

Me knowing the truth is irrelevent.


Then I get unbelievers like you and brutaltruth trying to tell me what I believe.

Which is effectively what both of you do when you try to define my God.

secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
In the absence of a full and sensible definition from you what other choice do you leave us? Come on define your god(s) without using a circular argument just one time.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
The Ultimate Reality.

That is the definition.


If you know what that means, it is an argument that stands alone.


I can't help that this is not what you God deniers want to hear. If you were honest, this would be enough. Since you aren't honest, you have to come up with ridiculous arguments to justify your wickedness like... "Uh.. definitions mean something other than definitions" or "I don't know what that is, so it must be false".


There is no way I can overcome the stupidity of those who don't believe in The Truth. All they can do is lie.


secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Truth is a concept not an actual thing. Reality is an actual thing but unless you know what is real just saying "reality" is meaningless
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
No, reality has a great deal of meaning.

Do you know what reality means?

Of course you do. Even if you don't know what it is.


And God is The Ultimate Reality, which you already know exists, even if you don't know God.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Saying something is real doesn't tell us anything about that something beyond its existence. Kindly stop pretending it does. 
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Stop accusing me of being as stupid as you.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
I have never accused you af being stupid. I have not once resorted to name calling. That is beneath me. Arguments stand or fail on their own. To call your fellow interlocutor stupid is to ma man ad hominem attack and that is a logical fallacy .
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Arguments don't stand on their own.

The Truth stands on its own. The Truth makes arguments stand or fall.

You can't admit that The Ultimate Reality exists.

You are objectively an idiot. 

If you say me making an ad hominem fallacy invalidates what I am saying, you are making the fallacy fallacy.

But you don't have to be an idiot. You can admit that The Ultimate Reality exists.






secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
I'm getting a little tired of the name calling, especially in light of the fact that I have always treated you with respect regardless of your conduct towards me. 
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
The Ultimate Reality exists.


Until you admit this, I can't help but believe you are a liar.

secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Either stop the name calling and personal attacks or I can't help but believe that you are a very rude person who gives christians a bad name and also that you have no reasonable argument to offer.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
That isn't a confession that The Ultimate Reality exists.



secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
No it is not. Reality most likely exists. That is what I can say while remaining intellectually honest unless something about the situation changes.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Reality most likely exists?

How are you not certain about this?

How is this intellectually honest?


If you can't be certain about this, you always have a back door into arbitrariness. A backdoor that you seem to exploit liberally, I might add.


You are monumentally full of shit.
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
The Dart has spoken.  By a majority vote, I propose we ban the words is, am, and are.  

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Plisken
No one here is mindful enough to speak in E-Prime.

Besides, it's a bad idea anyway.

secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
100 percent certainty is beyond human epistemology. Most likely is as close to full certainty as I am capable of on any point because I am forced to experience the universe through my flawed human senses. Just like you. 
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
This is the only thing you can be 100% certain of.

I am more certain of The Ultimate Reality existing than literally anything else. It is proven conclusively by the existence of experience. As there is some form of reality, The Ultimate Reality must exist. Without Ultimate Reality, there is no reality, not even illusory reality.

secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
What if there is only illusory reality with no actual reality? Can you prove conclusively that this is not the case? I reject any claim that reality is not an illusion and any claim that reality is an illusion. There is no way to test the hypothesis. We cannot know which is the case though I accept that reality is not illusory as a convenience and because it is the only reality that I can observe. Can you say I dont know? The only thing we can be certain of is that we must be wrong about something (probably a lot of things). No matter how sure you feel that some transcendent eternal thing exists there may be nothing transcendent or eternal in all of existence. Can you at least acknowledge the possibility that the ultimate reality is neither of those things? If you can admit we don't known for certain we will be that much closer to being on the same page.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
You are not really an agnostic, you reject belief because you think you know better.

This is not actually agnosticism, this is haughtiness. It is all the more obnoxious that you are feigning humility by saying you don't know.


But you certainly can prove these things you say are unprovable, but not if you don't accept ultimate reality as existing. The very concept of proof is a meaningless absurdity to someone who doesn't accept the ultimate reality as existing.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
What are you talking about? My whole point is that we can't know ad aposed to your dogged insistence that you must be right. Which stance shows more humility? I am a flawed human being and I do not kniw where the universe came from. Are you more than a flawed human being? Do you think you know better than astrophysicist and quantum physicists who have spent their whole life studying the universe? Because those good humble men don't claim to know.