Resolution: The concept of God is more similar than not to the concept of unknown information
XI Maintenance: An error in my R3
XI.a Just to clarify an error made in my R3, X.a.3: I said, “…thus defeating the Resolution of the conceptual unknown, and Con has said it within his own definition of similarity…” Please read the bolded Con as Pro. As soon as I published, I realized the error. Sorry for the confusion.
XII Maintenance: An explanation
XII.a Two days prior to accepting this debate, I entered a query in Comments to assure I understood Pro’s Resolution correctly. Lacking any response, I accepted the debate. In R1, Pro forfeited, and then in R2, expressed that he “…didn’t want to do this debate anymore,” yet offered argument which was rebuttable. I did not, therefore, consider Pro’s initial statement a concession, and accepted his arguments as effort to debate anyway. Based on Pro’s argument of attributes of God, I offered rebuttal in R2 and R3. This is a debate of keen interest to me. That I misunderstood, according to Pro, is no longer of consequence, since Pro decided to present argument anyway. I will continue rebutting Pro arguments.
XIII Rebuttal: Pro R3: Growth of Knowledge is, itself, an attribute
XIII.a Pro has argued that our knowledge of God, conceptually, is lacking and that, therefore, we remain unknowing with regard to a concept of God according to the Resolution.
XIII.b Pro’s R1 was a forfeit. By contrast, my R1 argued that our knowledge of God, conceptually, encompasses even secular understanding by such elements as the U.S. national motto, “In God we trust,” and by presentation of the majority of people worldwide who believe in God, and that, therefore the Resolution fails.
XIII.c Pro’s R2 reluctantly argued [“…I didn’t want to do this debate any more,” thus, the reason for Pro’s R1 forfeit?], which, by R1, alone, does not lose the debate for Pro since Pro’s R2 offered argument of our lack of knowledge of God’s attributes. Pro offered examples of Zeus lightning, Poseidon waves, and God’s creation; the latter as alternative to evolution. Note that “God’s attributes” were not mentioned in the Resolution, although the Description does speak to God “…having more than natural attributes and powers.”
XIII.c.1My R2 , V, and R3, IX, rebutted Pro’s R2 argument by rebuttal that human attributes are the same as God’s, offering three examples of it, rebutting Pro’s lightning, waves, and creation/evolution. Our abilities in these attributes are of a lesser degree than God’s, but that does not mean we do not know of them.
XIII.d By further example: we know that water is a molecule of two atoms of Hydrogen with one atom of Oxygen, forming the molecule, H2O. We have learned that with 5 such molecules of water, water is not wet, not a liquid, but a cluster of 6 molecules, or more renders the wetness as an added condition. “Scientists have now shown that water does not start to behave like aliquid until at least six molecules form a cluster.”
Until that point, water is a cluster of gasses, or, if cold enough, a solid cluster.
XIII.d.1 This has no direct relationship with the concept of God, other than by example; i.e., a concept of water. We understand the attributes of water, and, by the same logic, also understand God’s attributes, and, therefore, a concept of God by even a greater degree than we understand water, because we share attributes with God.
XIII.d.2 Regardless, we know enough, at present, to appreciate the uses water has, and we marvel at its various expressions [liquid, solid, gas], without understanding why that curious feature of wetness is a limited nature of the stuff. God knows why; we do not. An attribute that is greater than ours, yet we share sufficient ability with God to make use of water, so, the analogy works.
XIII.d.2.A We might further exemplify a divine attribute by observing the incident of Jesus Christ walking on water, as described in the Holy Bible: “And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.”
The fourth watch is 3am to 6 am; the last watch of the night. The entire episode is recorded in verses 22 – 32 of Matthew 14. For the same reason that we can plunge a hand into a body of liquid water without significant resistance, Jesus should not have been able to walk on it. To do so, it seems that he was applying a greater knowledge [attribute] than we currently understand. Not necessarily a violation of natural law [such as gravity], but applying the attribute of a greater law we do not currently know. That Peter, a disciple of Christ, was able to briefly apply the greater law, by faith, is evidence that we, too, may participate in such ability without understanding why.
XIII.d.2.B Thus are miracles explained; Jesus performed miracles numerous times in the Biblical account: the use of laws we currently do not understand, but which Christ did, and God has done from the beginning: the use of attributes we share, but do not yet fully understand in scope. Observe, for example, our expanding ability to yield more produce from an acre of land than previously thought possible, by applying greater knowledge gained about the nature of growing a crop. Not miracles, in our perspective, though sometimes we call it that, but simply learning more than we knew before.
XIII.d.2.C Another example: flight by our own human power was once thought impossible. A miracle that defies logic and natural ability? No, just the application of more knowledge. We call it “wingsuit flying.”
Five hundred years ago, da Vinci was attempting a design to allow human flight. He failed, but some principles he developed are still used. We have acquired more knowledge; we have improved on the attribute. There is more to learn to understand how Jesus rose into heaven. We will ultimately learn it.
XIII.e Therefore, we know that, while our body of knowledge is less than God’s, we can appreciate that not only is there more to know, we know how we can increase our body of knowledge. Thus, we grow in our concept of God, and his abilities [attributes] as our body of knowledge increases. The comparison of our respective bodies of knowledge does not mean that our relative lack of full knowledge of God’s attributes does not grow and increase. Conceptually, we simply get it.
XIX Rebuttal: Pro’s R3: Morality
XIX.a Pro accuses in R3 that, “…Con's argument fails to address these key issues.” To be fair, Pro was arguing more than just morality as “these key issues.” Pro was also speaking to his previous arguments of, as noted above, Zeus lightning, Poseidon waves, and God’s creation as alternative to evolution. But, as also noted above, I responded by rebuttal to these in my R2, V & R3. IX. Pro simply disregards these rebuttals by application of Pro’s R2 argument that his thematic intent was discussion of the attributes of God, which were addressed, as noted above, in my R2 and R3 rebuttals, defeat the Resolution.
XIX.b However, Pro is disingenuous accusing my lack of rebuttal with regard to morality since Pro never mentions the term prior to his R3, and I did address it in my frame of R3, IX.b. Therefore, to date, I have addressed all Pro arguments; to wit, Zeus lightning, Poseidon waves, God’s creation as alternative to evolution, and morality.
XIX.c Pro argued in R3, “However, we also know unknown information. For example, most people cannot agree on one moral system consistently.” Does anyone else see the contradiction in these two sentences? We know unknown information? If we know something, how is it unknown but by forgetfulness? To use Pro’s own disconnected mention of life on other planets in R3, I didn’t bother to ask Pro what, exactly, we know of that unknown since there exists no verifiable knowledge on the subject; it is all conjecture. As for morality, being unscientific, as I argued in R3 [we don’t know for sure if morality is objective or subjective], it is no wonder we cannot agree what is moral and what is not, other than in very general terms, and their consistency simply isn’t.
XX Rebuttal: Pro’s R4: No argument from Pro by forfeit
XX.a Pro forfeited R4 and, as such, having effectively forfeited “every other round,” in this case, two rounds, or 50% of the total four rounds, Pro should lose the debate not only by full forfeiture per the Voting Policy, but also by the success of my arguments over Pro's throughout the debate. I thank Pro for the debate, and ask for your vote. Thank you.
Holy Bible, Matthew 14: 25