The Christian God Does Not Exist
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Please provide sources for all claims.
Christian God - the God described in the Bible. He is supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.
Exist - To have current and objective reality.
1 - Main Argument
2 - Rebuttals
3 - Rebuttals
4 - Rebuttals
5 - Final Argument
Supernatural - Of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena.
Omniscient – All-knowing
Omnipotent – All-powerful
Omnibenevolent – All-good
We must first determine what the Christian God is. According to the Bible, the Christian God is:
- Omniscient, or all-knowing 
- Omnipotent, or all-powerful 
- Omnibenevolent, or all-good 
Now, let me explain why an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being cannot exist.
Omniscience is impossible. If God is omniscient, is he aware of the things he doesn't know? If yes, then he is not omniscient, because there is something he doesn't know. If no, then he is also not omniscient, because there is also something he doesn't know.
But the claim that God is omniscient is also in conflict with some fundamental concepts of Christianity. If God knows everything, then he knows what we want, so then what is the point of praying to him? If life is a test and God knows the outcome of the test, then what is the point of life?
Omnipotence is impossible. If God is omnipotent, then could he create a stone that he himself would not be able to lift? If yes, he is not omnipotent, because he can't lift the stone he just created. If no, then he is also not omnipotent, because he can't create an unliftable stone.
Unlike omniscience and omnipotence, omnibenevolence is actually possible. God, however, is not omnibenevolent. This is evident from all the horrible crimes God has commited in the Bible. Here are three events that disprove God's omnibenevolence: Sodom and Gomorrah, the Biblical Flood, and the death of the Egyptian firstborns.
Sodom and Gomorrah were two cities that God destroyed by sending fire and brimstone from the sky. God's actions killed every single inhabitant of the cities. God's reasoning for this mass murder was that the inhabitants were guilty of rape, homosexuality, and inhospitality. But not every single resident of the cities was guilty. Were two-year-old children having gay orgies? The answer is obviously not, which means that at least some residents of the cities were innocent. But if they were innocent, then why did God kill them? The only answer is: God is not omnibenevolent. An omnibenevolent being would never kill innocent people. Furthermore, God turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt simply for disobeying his order not to look back at a city that was being destroyed. An omnibenevolent being would never do that. 
The Biblical Flood was caused by God and resulted in the deaths of thousands of people. God's reasoning for this mass murder was that the people were sinful and wicked. But not every resident of Earth could possibly be wicked. Were infant children also sinful and wicked? What about animals? God killed them all, even though they were innocent. An omnibenevolent being would never kill innocent people. Since God is also omnipotent, he could have found a way to kill the sinners and leave alive the others, but he didn't. This only further proves that he is not omnibenevolent. 
The death of the Egyptian firstborns is the most horrible of the three examples I'm using. God killed every single Egyptian firstborn son because the Pharaoh, the leader of Egypt, refused to let the Israelis leave Egypt. Since God is omnipotent, he could have easily just changed the mind of the Pharaoh and not kill thousands of innocent children. Also, do not forget that it was God who made the Pharaoh reject the offer in the first place - God hardened the Pharaoh's heart. An omnibenevolent being would never kill innocents, but God does. And it's ten times worse because God doesn't have to kill innocents, as he is omnipotent. He has other choices, but he kills anyway. 
Those three examples alone are enough to prove that the Christian God is not omnibenevolent. But just in case that's not enough, God outright states that he is responsible for evil in Isaiah 45:7 KJV.
But let's say that God actually is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. For a second, let's ignore the logical inconsistencies of those claims and pretend that the existence of such a being would be possible. But even if we did that, the existence of the Christian God would still be impossible, because a being cannot be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent at the same time.
God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. He both wants to destroy evil (omnibenevolent) and has the ability to destroy evil (omnipotent). But then why does evil exist? Either God is not omnipotent or he's not omnibenevolent. But Christians believe that God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and so the Christian God is illogical.
Epicurus sums up this paradox in his quote :
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
I have proven that God cannot be omniscient and omnipotent. I have proven that God is not omnibenevolent. I have also proven that God cannot be omnipotent and omnibenevolent at the same time. This means that the Christian God, who is all three of those things, does not and cannot exist. All of those three characteristics are self-contradictory. It's possible that a higher power exists, but it's a fact that the Christian God does not and cannot exist. Over to Con.
 - Psalms 147:5 KJV, 1 John 3:20 KJV, Jeremiah 1:5 KJV, Jeremiah 23:24 KJV
 - Luke 1:37 KJV, Jeremiah 32:27 KJV, Mark 10:27 KJV, Revelation 19:6 KJV
 - Psalm 100:5 KJV, Psalm 145:17 KJV, John 3:16 KJV
Words and language are an imprecise medium and so a proposition that may at first appear to be emphatic, very rarely is.
As defined by the Oxford Online Dictionary.
a) Have objective reality or being.
b) Occur or be found, especially in a particular place or situation.
1: A God can be found, particularly situated and placed within the Christian Bible.
After all, that is the whole purpose of the Bible. The elucidation of the Christian notion of God.
So quite emphatically, relative to definition (b) The Christian God does exist within the context of the Christian Bible.
2. A God can be found, particularly situated and placed within my head and also within my opponents head.
The Christian God exists as a self contained conceptual reality. Resultant of education and re-education, conditioning or data input. As such the Christian God exists as a concept in probably everyone that exhibits typical brain function.
How we personally choose to assimilate and process data and consequently formulate ideas and responses, varies relative to when, where and how we were conditioned.
Convention would probably label me as an Atheist. Nonetheless the notion of a Christian God still exists within me, as does any other notional God, where relative data has be made available.
3. Objective Reality:
Well; objective reality is another extremely imprecise, multi- definitional can of worms. How can one data processing device, honestly determine the reliability of another devices honesty?
In short; a Christian would say that they were being objective, whereas an atheist would say the opposite, and vice versa. As such the indeterminate nature of objectivity can only ever be truly regarded as subjective in the context of hypothetical belief.
Reality alone, varies relative to context. Internal data processing is real in the context of physiology, so a God is also real enough within the context of our self contained consciousness. Whereas external or universal reality is either known or unknown. We assume that the limited knowledge that we have available is fairly accurate, but given the assumed vastness of the universe, what we don't know is considerable greater. So in this context both my opponent and I can only ever surmise that a God might or might not actually exist.
Now here's an imprecise word for you. Just look it up and pay particular regard to definition 3. (Online Oxford Dictionary)
A real or imaginary living creature or entity.
So by definition a God that might exist could be either a real or an imaginary living entity.
Imagination is internal data processing and existence is being and God is being and therefore God undeniably can exist in imagination.
And furthermore, imprecise definition informs us that entity is existence anyway. (Oxford Online Dictionary) So therefore God as an imaginary entity, does exist.
5. We are all self contained masses and how we function as a mass relies totally on how our brain functions. Other than how we are directly affected by our external environment any other external stimuli must first be subjected to internal assessment. Therefore as an Atheist, I conclude that Gods in the human context, can only be ever regarded as internal brain derived beings and as such in the context of brain derived definition Gods do exist.
"A God can be found, particularly situated and placed within the Christian Bible."
A God is not found in the Bible. The notion of God is found in the Bible, not God himself. If I wrote a book describing an apple, that wouldn't mean an apple is found in the book. Just because a book claims that God exists doesn't mean that God actually exists.
"A God can be found, particularly situated and placed within my head and also within my opponents head."
A God is not found in my head. The notion of God is found in my head, not God himself. I can think about an apple, but that doesn't mean the apple is in my head. The thought of the apple is in my head. Just because the idea of God exists in your head doesn't mean God exists in the real world.
We are not debating whether the notion of the Christian God exists or not, because it obviously does. We are debating if the Christian God himself exists. Therefore, these arguments are invalid.
"We assume that the limited knowledge that we have available is fairly accurate, but given the assumed vastness of the universe, what we don't know is considerable greater. So in this context both my opponent and I can only ever surmise that a God might or might not actually exist."
Knowledge is a subjective and man-made concept. Knowledge is, by definition, the things we already know . If we don't know something, then it isn't knowledge.
Furthermore, knowledge is infinite. Let's say that there is a couch in my living room. I know that there is a couch in my living room. That's knowledge. And I also know that I know that there is a couch in my living room, and that's also knowledge. This cycle of knowledge could go on forever.
Your argument would be right if you were talking about the existence of a supernatural God in general. This debate, however, is specifically about the existence of the Christian God. The existence of the Christian God is illogical, as I have proven in my Main Argument. Something that is illogical in one part of the universe cannot be logical in the other. Therefore, this argument is invalid.
"So by definition a God that might exist could be either a real or an imaginary living entity."
An imaginary entity cannot exist by definition. Something imaginary is not real, i.e doesn't exist . Just because the notion of the Christian God exists doesn't mean that the Christian God himself exists. The notion of unicorns exists, but does that mean unicorns themselves exist?
"God undeniably can exist in imagination."
Like I already said, God cannot exist in imagination. The notion of God can exist in imagination, not God himself. Imaginary entities do not exist by definition.
I remind my opponent that this debate is about the existence of a Christian God, not about the existence of deities in general. I have already proven that the God described in the Bible cannot exist.
"We must first determine what the Christian God is".
Well; no one knows what the Christian God is, as no one ever sees God. So God is actually indeterminate.
The Omni's are merely assumed character traits, which may or may not be pertinent or accurate.
And supernatural as my opponent rightly defines, substantiates the fact that no one is able know what the Christian God is, because God exists beyond what is assumed to be natural.
So as we can see, everything we have that is relative to The Christian God or any other God are assumptions derived from our internal data processing mechanisms. (As referred to in my opening argument).
Therefore we are only able to assess the possibility of a God's existence within these same parameters. (As suggested in my opening argument).
The main thrust of my opponents argument is centred around discrediting biblical scripture by inferring contradictions.
But as I have clearly exemplified in my opening argument, words and language are imprecise and therefore easily manipulated.
As an atheist my opponent, should already be of the opinion that biblical scripture Is more likely to be purely conceptual rather than factual.
One of the most interesting aspects of my opponents argument was their constant references to a God that they propose to be non-existent.
39 times in fact. So quite clearly God exists somewhere within the realms of my opponents conscious mind.
As for the three Omni's:
The three Omni's are, once again open to all sorts of interpretation, because of the imprecise nature of language and words. My opponent simply assumes one definition and meaning that is suitably relative to their particular argument.
All knowing: Could simply mean knowing everything to be known.
All powerful: Could mean a variety of things, dependant how one chooses to interpret the word powerful.
All good: Only God would have the authority to define goodness. Humans assume that there is a distinction to be made. We also assume importance and this would not necessarily be the case.
God does everything that needs to be done. Therefore God is omnipotent
He is able and does what is necessary? Then he is self-confident.
He is both able and self confident? So hence all is good.
We are not able to judge him? So call him God.
Epicurus was just a bloke, who manipulated words and language in exactly the same way that my opponent and I do.
My opponent openly admits that a higher power could possibly exist.
Christians assume the existence of a higher power and they refer to it as God.
In both of these two instances the higher power is unknown.
Therefore my opponents possibility and a Christians assumption are one and the same.
"Well; no one knows what the Christian God is, as no one ever sees God. So God is actually indeterminate."
The Christian God is the God described in the Bible. This has been stated in the debate description. Christianity assigns many different characteristics to its God, and I'm trying to prove how these characteristics are self-contradicting and illogical.
"Words and language are imprecise and therefore easily manipulated."
This is a bare assertion and needs to be supported by some proof. But even if this was true, this doesn't debunk my arguments.
"Biblical scripture is more likely to be purely conceptual rather than factual."
This is another bare assertion and needs proof to back it up. This has nothing to do with the fact that I am an atheist.
"One of the most interesting aspects of my opponents argument was their constant references to a God that they propose to be non-existent.39 times in fact. So quite clearly God exists somewhere within the realms of my opponents conscious mind."
God does not exist inside my mind. The notion of God exists inside my mind. And so does the notion of unicorns, but does that mean that unicorns exist? No. Just because some people think about God doesn't mean that God exists.
"The three Omni's are, once again open to all sorts of interpretation, because of the imprecise nature of language and words. My opponent simply assumes one definition and meaning that is suitably relative to their particular argument."
The three Omni's, as my opponent calls them, only have one definition each.
Omniscient - all-knowing
Omnipotent - all-powerful
Omnibenevolent - all-good
My opponent cannot just change the meaning of a word to suit his argument. Furthermore, the God described in the Bible knows everything, can do absolutely everything, and is all-good. This is obvious from the verses I presented in my Main Argument. My opponent cannot just ignore the Bible's definition of God and switch it with his own. And my opponent does exactly that:
"All knowing: Could simply mean knowing everything to be known. All powerful: Could mean a variety of things, dependant how one chooses to interpret the word powerful. All good: Only God would have the authority to define goodness. Humans assume that there is a distinction to be made. We also assume importance and this would not necessarily be the case."
I will refute each of those points below.
The God described in the Bible knows everything, not "everything to be known". You cannot just ignore Bible verses and change the characteristics of the Christian God. It's also incorrect to say that someone "knows everything to be known", because to determine what is to be known you would have to first determine what is not to be known. To determine what is not to be known, you would have to know that, but then it would be known.
The God described in the Bible can do absolutely anything. As it says in Luke 1:37, nothing is impossible with God. My opponent cannot just ignore Bible verses and change the meaning of the word "omnipotent".
The Bible states that God is all-good , and then states that God is responsible for all evil . A being that is omnibenevolent cannot be responsible for evil. The Bible's claim that God is all-good contradicts its claim that God is responsible for all evil. Good is a subjective term, meaning that whether things are good or bad is subjective; but an all-good being cannot do evil by definition.
My opponent finishes his rebuttal with an alternative to Epicurus' quote.
"Epicurus Alternative:God does everything that needs to be done. Therefore God is omnipotentHe is able and does what is necessary? Then he is self-confident.He is both able and self confident? So hence all is good.We are not able to judge him? So call him God."
1. What is "everything that needs to be done"? How do you determine what needs to be done and what does not need to be done? This is irrelevant regardless; the definition of omnipotent is not what someone does but what someone can do.
2. Self-confidence is irrelevant to this debate. Also, my opponent has not proven the claim that God is able in the first place.
3. Someone able and self-confident is not automatically all-good.
This alternative proves nothing and is irrelevant.
"Epicurus was just a bloke, who manipulated words and language in exactly the same way that my opponent and I do."
This is an ad hominem attack and proves nothing.
My opponent concludes his rebuttal with this statement:
"My opponent openly admits that a higher power could possibly exist.Christians assume the existence of a higher power and they refer to it as God.In both of these two instances the higher power is unknown.Therefore my opponents possibility and a Christians assumption are one and the same."
The Christian God is not just a higher power. He is also omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. As I have proven, being these things is impossible, and so the Christian God cannot exist.
My opponent cannot change the definitions of words and ignore Biblical verses. I have already proven that the Christian God described in the Bible is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. I have also proven that a being cannot be those things. Therefore, the Christian God cannot and does not exist.
 - Psalm 100:5 KJV, Psalm 145:17 KJV, John 3:16 KJV
 - Isaiah 45:7 KJV.
My opponent has not proved anything.
They have simply used words with variable definition and put them together in one particular order to suit their own purposes. Which is debating of course.
All pertinent words used within their discourse, such as exist and the three omni's have variable and alternative definition. (As identified in rounds 1 and 2).
All that I do, is utilise these legitimate variations and alternatives to construct an appropriate counter-argument. Which is debating of course.
The only certainty is, that this time worn argument will never be resolved. Because somewhat illogically maybe it will always be impossible to either prove or disprove
the existence of an actual entity, referred to in the Christian Bible as God.
So my opponent flogs a dead horse, whilst I present a perfectly reasonable argument primarily centred around the impreciseness and alternative definitions of the word exist.
We cannot monopolise words and language, therefore I would strongly assert that as long as I utilise words and language within the parameters set by accepted lexical convention, then my discourse on the existence of the Christian God as an intangible entity, is wholly valid.
"My opponent has not proved anything."
I have proven that the God described in the Bible is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. I have proven that omniscience and omnipotence are impossible. I have proven that it's impossible to be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. I have proven that God is responsible for all evil. I have proven that God cannot be responsible for evil and be omnibenevolent at the same time. I have proven that the Christian God cannot exist.
"All pertinent words used within their discourse, such as exist and the three omni's have variable and alternative definition."
These words do not have variable and alternative definitions. My opponent has not presented any proof that they do. My opponent cannot just make up another definition and call it "variable and alternative". Words have set meanings, you cannot just change those meanings to win a debate.
"So my opponent flogs a dead horse, whilst I present a perfectly reasonable argument primarily centred around the impreciseness and alternative definitions of the word exist."
The word exist was defined in the description of this debate - To have current and objective reality. My opponent can't just change the definitions of words in the middle of the debate.
"We cannot monopolise words and language, therefore I would strongly assert that as long as I utilise words and language within the parameters set by accepted lexical convention, then my discourse on the existence of the Christian God as an intangible entity, is wholly valid."
Monopolizing a word is when only one person is allowed to say that word. Assigning a word one single meaning is not monopolization. My opponent cannot randomly change the definition of a word and then scream "You're monopolizing language" when he is called out.
My opponent does not understand that he cannot just change the definitions of words to suit his argument.
Omniscient - All-knowing
Omnipotent - All-powerful
Omnibenevolent - All-good
These words do not mean "knowing all that there is to be known", or "doing all that needs to be done". My opponent cannot just change the definition of a word. These words do not have variable definitions, only one definition each. Just because my opponent assigns these words different definitions with no basis whatsoever does not mean that the meanings of the words change.
If it's so hard for my opponent to understand what omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent mean, I'll boil it down for him. All-knowing, all powerful, and all-good. I have already proven that the God in the Bible is all of those things, and I have proven how being all of those things is impossible. Therefore, the Christian God is impossible. I remind my opponent that we are not debating whether a metaphysical deity exists or not, we are debating whether the God described in the Bible exists or not.
"I have proven that the God described in the Bible is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent".
I thought that my opponent was attempting to prove the opposite?
"These words do not have alternative and variable definitions".
Check your dictionaries.
Once again, check your dictionaries or refer to definition (b) as presented in round1.
"Occur or be found, especially in a particular place or situation".
We cannot simply ignore definition that does not suit our argument.
"I remind my opponent that we are not debating whether a metaphysical deity exists or not, we are debating whether the God described in the bible exists or not".
As far as I am concerned, the God described in the bible and the God that exists in mine and my opponents heads, is metaphysical.
Did my opponent not describe God as supernatural?
If a supreme being is going to be anything, then I think that it is fair to suggest that the Christian God would be omni-sensible.
So why would God bother to create a stone that it could not lift?
The 3 Omni's revisited:
The 3 Omni's are nothing more than assumptions made of an assumption. That is to say; assumed characteristics attributed to an assumed God.
Therefore the irony of my opponents predicament, is that they cannot actually destroy the reputation of the Christian God, unless they can first prove that a Christian God actually exists, so that they can then proceed to prove that the Christian God that therefore must exist, does not possess such characteristics.
All that would leave us with, would be an existent God that was not necessarily omniscient, omnipotent or omnibenevolent.
Would humans have the right or the authority to determine a Gods character?
Would humans have the right or the authority to judge whether or not a god lives up to assumed expectations?
My opponent does not understand that they cannot monopolise definition.
Monopolise: "Get or keep exclusively to oneself". (Oxford Online Dictionary).
And I'm finding it tough!
My opponent reiterates:
"I have already proven that God of the bible is all of those things".....If God of the bible has been proven to be all of those things, then God of the bible must have been proven to exist.
"And I have proven how being all of those things is impossible"...…. Super-contradiction!
Proving all of those things to be impossible does not prove that a God is not possible. God might not possess those characteristics. Given that those characteristics are only a Christian assumption.
And God certainly does my opponents head in!
So it definitely exists in there somewhere as either a real or an imaginary entity.
Being = EXIST as either a real an imaginary entity.
EXIST = Being.
Entity = EXISTANCE.
As defined by Oxford Online Dictionaries. Check it out.
My opponent is either intellectually dishonest or incredibly stupid. He states that:
"Proving all of those things to be impossible does not prove that a God is not possible. God might not possess those characteristics. Given that those characteristics are only a Christian assumption."
So, he admits that the existence of the God described in the Bible is impossible, and he then says that the existence of a God in general is possible. I have said multiple times that this debate is not about whether a metaphysical deity exists or not, it is about whether the God described in the Bible exists or not. My opponent cannot ignore the rules of the debate to win the debate, but he has done so multiple times:
- Con has changed the definition of the Christian God with no Biblical verses to back this definition up.
- Con has changed the definition of the word exist with no evidence that shows his definition is correct.
- Con has changed the definitions of the words omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent with no evidence that shows his definition is correct.
Con has also claimed that since the notion of God exists inside our heads, God must exist. This is a non sequitur. He accuses me of monopolizing language, even though monopolization means "to keep exclusively for oneself" and I am not forbidding my opponent from saying any words. Because he broke the rules of this debate and his arguments were completely destroyed, he completely changes the topic of this debate. Now he's saying that Christians have no authority to determine God's characteristics. I never said that Christians had authority to do that. But a God that does not fit those characteristics is not a Christian God, and we are debating whether the Christian God exists or not.
The Orvan Snowflake does not exist.
Because the Orvan Snowflake is not omni-colourful.
To prove that the Orvan Snowflake is not omni-colourful
One must first prove the existence of the Orvan Snowflake.
So that one can prove that it is not omni-colourful.
It's the same old age worn argument.
Something that cannot be proven to exist, also cannot be proven to not exist.
Assumptions are not proof of anything.
And making assumptions of an assumption is stabbing even more wildly in the dark.
My opponent states that "The Christian God Does Not Exist".
Therefore I feel under no obligation to prove the opposite.
My main objective, is pointing out the futility of my opponents reiteration of the same old flawed and irrational, pseudo-hypothesis.
All that I need do is prove that my opponent using character assassination alone, cannot prove that the Christian God doesn't exist.
Unless they can first prove that there is an existent God that might or might not display the relevant characteristics.
By definition it is correct to suggest that the Christian God does exist.
a) As an imaginary Biblical character.
b) As an imaginary brain held concept.
(All relevant definitions taken from the Oxford Online Dictionaries, appear in Round1).
And has my opponent has shown throughout this debate.
The Christian God is often uppermost in their thoughts.
Bump Missed this one - I may not have time for an RFD
Come on guys, vote!
** Hey, would you like to have another debate on the same topic? **
I thought that that's what we are doing? just kidding. Sure, why not.
Can we do this together?
Hey, would you like to have another debate on the same topic?
You're right. This isn't a proper discussion given the subject of your debate. We can end this here.
Also this is completely unrelated to the topic of my debate, so if you want to have this discussion please message me.
The government's purpose is to protect and benefit its citizens.
How limited should the government be? Socially, I think the government should be very limited. I'm for a secular government, almost total free speech, pro-choice, pro-gun, pro-prostitution, completely for gay marriage, etc.
Economically, I think the government should support low taxes, the free market, and economic freedom.
However, the government should still have duties that no one else wants to do: security, military, enforcing laws, preventing scams and monopolies, etc.
**Sure. But like I said, there is no point in conversation with God since:
1. God already knows everything you're going to say.
2. God isn't going to reply and talk to you.**
1. So? Just because God knows what you are going to say, doesn't mean there is no point. Again, talking with God is meant to help the person, not God. Sometimes when one goes through a difficult time, your friend or family is there for you-- they listen to you. They may already know what you are going through, but they are there for you to listen. When one talks with them, it's helpful. It's the same with God.
2. Ahhhhh, how do you know that. Perhaps God responds, but perhaps one just doesn't recognize or hear Him talking (see what Elijah says about that!).
"I still don't understand. Are you trying to ask me how limited the minimal government should be, or what should its goals and purpose be, or what?"
I still don't understand. Are you trying to ask me how limited the minimal government should be, or what should its goals and purpose be, or what?
"What do you mean, in which cases? "
I'll rephrase: in what capacity do you envision this minimal government functioning?
What do you mean, in which cases?
"an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens."
And in which cases do you believe that minimal state intervention is required in the lives of citizens?
"Also, you're a monarchist? That's interesting. Why are you a monarchist?"
Everything on my profile, with the exception of my speaking French, is hyperbolic to the point of ridicule. I don't actually subscribe to anything listed on my profile except when "IT"S PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME!"
Also, you're a monarchist? That's interesting. Why are you a monarchist?
My definition: an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.
"Well then I guess I'm not a libertarian, since I don't agree with that definition!"
I'm not the one who defined it; but I'm curious: what is your concept of Libertarianism?
Well then I guess I'm not a libertarian, since I don't agree with that definition!
"Based on what do you think that autarchism is required to be a libertarian?"
Based on the core priniciple of Libertarianism: liberty. Liberty among individuals cannot be expressed unless they can pursue all avenues in which it can manifest, i.e. autonomy, association, sovereignty, etc. If an individual must subject himself to the authority of another, then he is not "free"; he's merely the object in the pursuit of someone else, and not the subject of his own.
Based on what do you think that autarchism is required to be a libertarian?
"I don't see anything inconsistent with my beliefs. You don't have to be an absolute. I can lean towards libertarianism but still not be an anarchist."
I would argue otherwise. While true that Libertarianism doesn't necessarily require one to be an "anarchist," it does require one subscribe to autarchism--i.e. each individual is his own final authority. How does one suppose to resolve this conflict with a centralized, hegemonic state?
Please. Don't be rude. Why would you want to kill me for having a different belief?
I said SOME of their economic reasoning is sound. Not tariffs, I disagree with that. Illegal immegration helps the economy? I never saw any credible sources that confirmed that claim.
I don't align with Republicans. I said that I align with Republicans a little more than Democrats. You can dislike both things but still prefer one over the other. I think tariffs are bad, LEGAL immigration is good, and banning gay marriages and abortion is bad. Please, I don't want to argue. Just stay friends. If you want to talk message me privately.
I don't see anything inconsistent with my beliefs. You don't have to be an absolute. I can lean towards libertarianism but still not be an anarchist.
How can you say Republicans have better economy policies when they agree with tariffs where no credible economists agrees with?
How about stopping immigration even though immigration improves the economy?
I actually want to rip your head off. An expression of course.
The Republican atheist position really bothers me. You align with Religious people who dislike homosexuals are bad for the economy and try everything they can to discourage academia. This is under the assumption that you used the very same academia to come to the conclusion of atheism yet don't use the very same academia who say tariffs are bad, immigration is good and conservatives like in Alabama want to regress as in ban depiction of gay marriages and ban abortion.
"I'd say that I'm more libertarian then conservative, but I am fiscally conservative."
Unfortunately, like Ben Shapiro, political Libertarianism is more of a meme than it is a sound political/economic/moral philosophy. Most whom I've encountered who claim to be "Libertarian" are just minarchists in disguise. The contexts in which they accept liberty as fundamental to social interaction are almost always arbitrarily selected. It's never about the principles, but it's always about the circumstances. If that were case, then everyone can claim to be libertarian. One either accepts the philosophy in its entirety because it operates on fundamental axioms and consistent logic, or one doesn't accept the philosophy at all. One cannot have one's cake and eat it, too.
Sure. But like I said, there is no point in conversation with God since:
1. God already knows everything you're going to say.
2. God isn't going to reply and talk to you.
I know that you can't rip my head off, it's a form of expression. I just think it's strange to bombard a stranger with so many questions. Maybe if you want to have a discussion you could message me, because this is unrelated to the debate.
I never said that I like Trump. I said I dislike him. I know that he has no experience and that many of his businesses have failed. That's why I said I would only vote for him if someone pointed a gun to my head. I just think he's a lesser evil than Hillary Clinton.
I'm a libertarian, so I think socialism is harmful and doesn't work.
I align with Republicans a bit more. I think some of their economic reasoning is sound. And they're also against big government and high taxes, and I'm a libertarian. But a lot of what they believe is bullshit, like climate change denialism, religious stuff, anti-gay marriage, etc.
Prayer is not about changing God, it's about changing us.
What is prayer? Prayer is simply conversation with God. Some people choose to use this conversation as only an opportunity to ask for things.
God, like any good parent, wants his children to come to Him and talk to him, but often, not only when they need something.
I'm pretty sure you don't just talk to folks when you need things, right? It's funny. I have kids. They all talk with me. One child however seems to only come to me when he wants something-- "Dad, I need the car. Dad, I want some new shoes. Dad, I need some money to go out. Dad, I want to download the latest update for Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six" People have observed this and have said "Wow....he seems kinda selfish." (in my mind I think, my God-- he is just like me when I was his age!"
Prayer is not just about asking for thing, it's about conversing with God. If all we do is ask God for things, we are taking a pretty selfish role in the relationship.
It all comes down to the classic prayer we should pray to God, which Jesus repeated as shown in the Bible: "Not my will, but YOUR will be done".
Why Trump like you have admitted he has no experience when it comes to public office and if you didn't know he is a failed businessman?
What do you think of socialism?
Which party do you align with more: Democrats or Republicans?
I can't rip your head off. I don't know where it is.
Your argument on "omnibenevolence" pre-supposes or assumes a very critical point-- that man sees things/events as an infinite or omniscient God sees them. I always tell people that's pretty much the height of arrogance-- to claim to see/perceive events/things as God sees them.
A person can see an event and think "that is TERRIBLE! HORRIFIC! THE WORST! EVIL!", but the person is seeing it from their limited, perhaps im-mature perspective. Have you ever taken a young child to go get a shot at the doctor (I've had to do that many times)? They'll scream and kick and yell and sometimes say things like "NO! PLEASE DON'T! I DON'T WANT A SHOT! IT'S THE WORST! t", etc. as if it's the end of the world. But the young child simply is unable to see it due to his perspective and im-maturity.
I'm sure folks will yell "STRAWMAN!" and argue that "taking a child to get a shot" doesn't compare to the "killing that occurs in the OT". The point is, just because YOU think something is Good or BAd doesn't necessarily mean God views it that way. What is good/bad in YOUR eyes, may not be so in God's eyes, or may have a higher purpose.
So praying to God is like talking to a therapist in your head? Never thought about that. But still, you must agree that a central concept of Christianity is asking God for forgiveness, hapiness, safety, wealth, etc.
Chill with the questions. It sounds like you want to rip my head off. (:
I don't really like Ben Shapiro. Some of his arguments and beliefs are stupid (He's a theist, he's very anti-Palestian, he's pro-life, etc). I just chose that profile picture because I think it's funny and Ben is kind of a meme.
I dislike both Hillary and Trump. Trump is more authoritarian and I'm a libertarian, Trump has made strange comments towards women, Trump has never held a government/military position, and he ignores nuances on many issues. Hillary has painted her opponents as racist sexist homophobes, lied a lot about many things (such as that she was under sniper fire on a diplomatic visit), said that she would start a war with Russia if elected, and her foundation is just a corruption machine that gives very little to actual charity. I don't like either, but if someone pointed a gun to my head and said "choose" I'd choose Trump.
True, a lot of people pray to God to get things. But God isn't a magical Genie arising out of bottle to grant people their wishes.
Again, the point of talking to God is for our benefit. I'm sure you've had moments in your life that were very difficult, and talking about it with someone helped you. You probably didn't get anything materialistically out of it, but simply talking it about helped out. That's how it is with talking to God.
Who would vote for if you could back when it was Hillary vs Trump?
Do you like Ben Shapiro?
A lot of people pray to God to get things.
And what is the point of talking to God if he knows what you're going to say? God doesn't respond to you, it's just you talking to him.
I'd say that I'm more libertarian then conservative, but I am fiscally conservative.
Prayer.-- what's the point of praying to God if he already knows about everything?
Prayer is not just about asking God what you want or need, it's about being a relationship and having a conversation with God, and aligning ourselves accordingly. IT's not about changing God and having wave a "magic wand" and give us what we want, it's about changing us.
Are you a conservative atheist?
Yep. Catholics/Christians believe God is omnipotent, but omnipotent doesn't necessarily mean God going against His nature. I would counter by saying the Christian definition of "omni-potent" does not mean being able to do the "logically impossible" And since you (we) are using the Bible, I would ask you to clarify how you assert that the Bible implies/says that God can do the "logically impossible"?
The Christian Bible does not define or imply "Omnipotence" as being able to do the the "logically impossible".
The "can an omnipotent being create a stone to heavy to lift" argument is pretty much self-refuting and illogical. The critic who uses this argument is using an illogical argument, instead of a logical one, to prove God doesn't exist. Again, it's analogous (not a straw-man, analogous) to the "I define a triangle as having 3 sides, so make me a triangle with 4 sides" challenge. Some other fun Omnipotent Paradoxes: can God create a one-ended stick? Can God beat himself up in a fist-fight? Can God make married bachelors? Can God create square circles? Can God make a woman be both pregnant and not pregnant at the same time? Can God make a unicycle with 2 wheels? It's nonsense.
There are simply things God can not do BECAUSE He is omnipotent. This question is basically a clever way of saying "Can a Being of unlimited power produce something to limit Him?" But, His unlimited Power, by definition, rules out that possibility. An unlimited being can not create limits for himself.
Funny....the Pharisees tried trapping Jesus with a paradoxical challenge when they asked him about if they should pay taxes to the Romans....see how he gets out of that ;-)
I would have to reasearch more about the New American Bible and then I might make a new debate about the existence of the Christian God. If you want to debate topics like "Is God omnipotent?" or "Is God omnibenevolent?", I would be happy to do so! (:
You still haven't explained why the "stone too heavy to lift" argument is flawed. If you think my definition of omnipotence is different from the Christian one, you can read the sources from my Main Argument to see that you're wrong. However, they're all from the KJV bible, and I haven't researched the Bible you're referring to. But from what I know, Catholics also think that God is omnipotent.
Answers to your questions:
1. Yes. Omnipotence only has one definition - unlimited power.
2. It means that an omnipotent God cannot exist, and an omnipotent God is the definition of the Christian God. Like I said in my Main Argument, this isn't about the existence of a higher power but about specifically the Christian God.
Sure,I love a healthy debate, civil discussion, good conversation. A good debate has the potential to do two things:
a) Bolster one in their position/beliefs
b) Or lead one to the Truth it they are in error.
But i would want to have a separate debate over each attribute. There is a lot to unpack and debate with omniscience, omnipotent, etc and it often gets convoluted, when trying to defend/argue for/against all the attributes. In addition, I would want to use the Catholic Bible (NAB version would suffice) and not the Protestant version.
The "stone too heavy to lift" is just another example of the Omnipotent Paradox, just packaged differently. While not exactly the same, it's analogous to "the triangle with 2 sides"
But as I implied before, I think your definition of "omnipotence" is not the same as the Christian's view (or at least my view) of "omnipotence". It's a critical/fundamental difference A critical point. Or put another way (with some questions)
1. Is your definition of "Omnipotence" consistent with the Christian's understanding of "Omnipotence"?
2. If God CAN'T make a stone so heavy even He can't lift (or make a triangle with 2 sides, etc), does that mean he doesn't exist? Or does it mean He simply doesn't fit into your definition of omnipotence (which may or may not be consistent with the Christian's definition of "omnipotence" or what is implied in the Bible")
That is true. But that doesn't contradict what I said. "The Christian God" is the God most Christians believe in, and how the Bible describes God. Just because you think he's not omnipotent doesn't change the definition of the Christian God.
If that's what you meant, because I'm not sure why you commented that.
Just because something is widespread and in use by a lot of people, doesn't make it the authority or correct text to use. Just sayin'. "Popular vote" is not necessarily the best means to determine is true and authoritative.
If you want, you can debate me! I can make another debate and use the same argument.
The only problem with your "rebuttal" is, that's not my argument. My argument is that God could not make a stone that he himself would not be able to lift, which means that he is not omnipotent. Also, you can't just ignore the Bible and claim that God can't do things that "go against his nature". It doesn't matter whether you believe God is omnipotent or not. The Bible says that he is omnipotent, and there is only one version of omnipotence - all powerful.
Eh, no. What is a paradox or impossible in your mind might not necessarily be binding to God. Here's a fun little thought exercise:
Atheist: "God, if you are all-powerful, I want you to make a triangle with 2 sides."
God: "Ok. Before I begin, I want to make sure I'm on the same page as you. Please define "triangle". What exactly is a 'triangle' in your opinion"
Atheist: "Sheesh, if you were God, you'd know that already. But here goes, a triangle is an enclosed shape that has 3 sides and 3 angles."
God: "Ok. Let me get this straight. You've just defined "triangle" as an enclosed shape that has 3 sides and 3 angles. But then now you want me to make one that has 2 sides. According to your definition, that would not be a triangle."
The classic "Omnipotence Paradox" leaves out one crucial element-- God's nature. There are certain things that God can not do, such as go against His
That's why definitions are important, especially omnipotent. I'm willing to bet most Christians and Atheists differ on what it means to be "Omnipotent". An atheist claims that if God is omnipotent, He should be able to do ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING, including illogical possibilities, falsehoods etc, and then use this as a claim that God doesn't exist. Whereas most Christians I know don't hold that belief of "omnipotence". And I would argue that the Christian Bible (either Protestant or Catholic) doesn't claim or imply this version of omnipotence.
And my comment about "beating chest, etc" was simply for effect ;-) lol. Point remains though, that Atheists will use the "Omnipotence Paradox" as a reason God doesn't exist.
I'm using the King James version because it's one of the most widespread and also in English.
I have defined the four characteristics of God.
Saying "God cannot create a triangle with only two sides" is a legitimate argument. It shows that God is not omnipotent as there is something cannot do. Also, you have never seen an atheist beat their chest and proclaim "SEE! Your God is not all-powerful". Stop lying.
Why are using the King James version? Or perhaps, a better question is, why are you using a "Protestant" Bible and not the "Catholic" Bible?
Both the Catholic and Protestant Bible have 27 books in the New Testament. But the Old Testament versions differ greatly. The Catholic Bible has 46 books in the OT, whereas the Protestant Bible has only 39 books in the OT.
There's much debate as to why they differ, but many theologians agree that the "Catholic" version was in use ever since the Canon of the Bible was affirmed, and it wasn't until the Reformation some 400-500 years ago that the Protestants decided the Catholic version was wrong and opted for "their Canon".
Anyway, it may seem inconsequential, but I think it's a very important point. You want to make sure you are using the "correct" texts and your opponent agrees . Otherwise, that would be like debating Shakespeare based on his sonnets, but leaving out some of his 154 sonnets....
You should probably also define "supernatural", "omniscient", "omnipotent", and "omnibenevolent".
I've seen folks try to rebut God's omnipotence by saying "Well, can God create a stone so heavy even He can't lift it", which is akin to saying something like "Can God create a triangle with only 2 sides?".....and then when you say "No", they beat their chests and proclaim "SEE! Your God is not all-powerful!". lol