Instigator / Con
25
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Topic
#166

God is identical to 'truth' itself. God is not just true, but actually truth itself. {Mopac = Pro | RM = Con}

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
9
Better sources
8
6
Better legibility
5
5
Better conduct
0
5

After 5 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
25
1508
rating
4
debates
62.5%
won
Description

No information

If I lose the votes in this debate because the voters mistakenly claim that I didn't use sources or don't know how the dictionary works, I will consider that mighty lame.

But the truth is the truth whether or not the entire world disagrees with it.

Those who deny God by nature embrace arbitrariness.

-->
@Ramshutu

In other words, you think all you have to do to win an argument is make a straw man.

Gotcha.

But you admit that God exists by conceding that The Ultimate Reality exists.

'Nuff said.

-->
@Mopac

Yes I get it. He exists because you’ve said he is the ultimate reality - and as such is required to exist as that’s what ultimate reality requires.

... and You’ve defined him into existence. Like I said.

God is the most powerful it is possible to be. If a being that exists can do something, if a being that doesn’t exist can also do that thing, despite them not existing - they are obviously more powerful.

As God is the most powerful being possible - he can’t exist.

... and I just defined him out of existence.

-->
@Ramshutu

Yes, the specific definitions of God with a capital G.

Monotheist theology does not accept these other gods as being ultimately real. Only God is real. The Supreme Being. The Ultimate Reality. The Truth.

-->
@Mopac

... and yet you use the specific definitions of specific words in order to claim that God exist.

-->
@Ramshutu

The Ultimate Reality, God, is not defined into existence, that's ridiculous.

And so is everything else you are saying.

-->
@Mopac

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.

-->
@Ramshutu

Because the God I am describing is what is understood in theology, and I know that if you deny this God, it stands to reason you aren't being honest because you don't believe in truth.

You are, after all lying about my lack of sources and taking the meanings of words to be arbitrary.

So if you want to lie, go ahead. You are have a right to be wrong.

-->
@RationalMadman
@Mopac

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.

-->
@Ramshutu

You are certainly entitled to be wrong.

-->
@Mopac

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.

-->
@Type1

People like me, tzarpepe, and whoever uses this argument will continue to do so until people like you stop arguing against straw men while pretending you aren't.

-->
@Ramshutu

You say I didn't use sources, which is patently false. I used Merriam-webster, Oxford, and at least 2 theologians.

Besides that, using the dictionary to prove that God means The Truth is a legit argument. You are voting based on an aversion to God, not a real examination of the debate.

But what evs

-->
@ArgentTongue

Bump

Mopac was Tzarpepe on CD. The guy is a total wank biscuit who does nothing but repeat his catch phrase "supreme ultimate reality" over and over again. This debate will be fruitless because both of you are theists at the end of the day, which means that no type of reality or logic is present in this debate to begin with.

-->
@Mopac

It is not arrogance if I am better.

You made the mistake of presuming my argument. You are very arrogant

-->
@Mopac

Deism is actually 3 not 2 sorry for the error.

Moral authority doesn't mean that god is good just to be clear it's about who invented good to begin with.

I wonder what kind of sophistry the madman will pull to get out of this one.