The God you are describing is being defined into existence. You have to select definitions and language carefully for God to exist. It is possible for a human to change the definition of the words you are using, and if this happened a change in language means your God no longer would exist.
That’s an Addict. RM successfully used definitions to prove your God can’t be the truth. In the context of the debate, he made A Better semantic argument than your semantic argument. You lost because you made a bad argument. You lost sources in part because you didn’t link any citations or
Definitions, but mostly that RMs sources directly reinforces his point directly, whereas you had to shoe horn and use word play with the general definitions that you didn’t properl source.
If you’re not interested in learning from any of your errors: go ahead.
Firstly, By all means show me the dictionary source you linked in your debate. Con provided sources and links, you did not. But in reality the sources win mainly came from his philosophy of truth, as that consolidated the validity of the definition with which he beat you with.
Secondly, defining God unto existence is a valid argument. RationalMadman did better than you because his argument defined God out of existence.
I voted because your argument was not as good as his,, the same way that I have will (and have), vote the other way if this wasn’t the case.
I read what you wrote, it’s not that I don’t understand, but that I understood and found that your opponent did much better. His explanation of infinite series was good.
Perhaps next time you should make a better argument.
The God you are describing is being defined into existence. You have to select definitions and language carefully for God to exist. It is possible for a human to change the definition of the words you are using, and if this happened a change in language means your God no longer would exist.
That’s an Addict. RM successfully used definitions to prove your God can’t be the truth. In the context of the debate, he made A Better semantic argument than your semantic argument. You lost because you made a bad argument. You lost sources in part because you didn’t link any citations or
Definitions, but mostly that RMs sources directly reinforces his point directly, whereas you had to shoe horn and use word play with the general definitions that you didn’t properl source.
If you’re not interested in learning from any of your errors: go ahead.
Maybe RM can weigh in and explain why I am correct. I’m glad your first reaction is to blame me, rather than look at your own arguments.
Firstly, By all means show me the dictionary source you linked in your debate. Con provided sources and links, you did not. But in reality the sources win mainly came from his philosophy of truth, as that consolidated the validity of the definition with which he beat you with.
Secondly, defining God unto existence is a valid argument. RationalMadman did better than you because his argument defined God out of existence.
I voted because your argument was not as good as his,, the same way that I have will (and have), vote the other way if this wasn’t the case.
Stalk away. Knock yourself out.
Nope.
I’m going to vote: but it’s a long one lol - it may take me a while!
I read what you wrote, it’s not that I don’t understand, but that I understood and found that your opponent did much better. His explanation of infinite series was good.
Perhaps next time you should make a better argument.
That was a typo on my part- I meant con explained it very well.
You didnt. And it was clear from your opponents argument that this was just a typo on his part.