Instigator / Con
29
1533
rating
2
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#309

The Claim That The Christian God Exists

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
6
Better sources
10
10
Better legibility
5
4
Better conduct
5
5

After 5 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

BrutalTruth
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
25
1508
rating
4
debates
62.5%
won
Description

Pro claims that the Christian god exists. Pro will argue for that claim. Con will argue against that claim.
Mopac is Pro. BrutalTruth is Con.

Pertinent Information: The god in question is a Christian diety. Therefore, the god in question can only be defined by the Christian bible. Any sources used(including, but not limited to, dictionaries) must be definitively consistent with said bible's definition of said god.

-->
@Ramshutu

You won't accept that God is what God is.

The spirit of truth is not in you, that is why you can't see God The Father through The Son.

-->
@Ramshutu

My argument isn't to define God as reality.

I didn't define God. The Church understands God as The Ultimate Reality.

I am making no innovation.

Why is that important? Because the faith isn't making up a bunch of stuff and calling it God.

Your argument is totally invalid and untrue because you don't understand what I'm saying.

And I'm not ignoring anything, you don't understand the concept of God so you don't know what the concept is pointing to.

-->
@Mopac

What’s your logic? As I have been saying for dozens and dozens of posts now:

What you are doing, is defining God as reality, and then saying as reality exists, God exists.

Reality exists, but we can’t tell if reality is an entity, that it has a mind, and creative reality. Because of that, we can’t tell whether reality has all the properties of God - and therefore whether God exists.

So defining God as reality is a pointless and meaningless exercise because of all the other properties of God you happen to ignore

This is the massive problem you keep ignoring in preference to the incoherent rants about how I’m not accepting The truth. No - you’re logic is idiotic and you don’t know how definitions work.

-->
@Ramshutu

What is my logic? That words mean what they mean?

You don't understand my faith, you are very much in the dark.

You can't even accept that God means The Ultimate Reality, and if you can't accept this, how can you understand anything else?

You don't know my faith, but you think you do. That has rendered you unteachable. Your confidence is misplaced. You are as a 2 year old arguing with a grown man.

You make it all arbitrary, which is a shame.

There is One Absolute Truth, and countless lies. You would rather rest on one of the many lies than come to knowledge of The Truth.

To your own detriment.

-->
@Mopac

No, I’m rejecting your stupid logic which fails at a most basic logical level.

Not only that, you’re argument utterly fails on a theological basis too: your entire position completely links the existance of the supreme being, and divine creator of the entire Cosmos directly to the specific words that human beings have decided to attribute to him, and the meaning that those humans have assigned. Every man of learning and faith should rightly laugh at this, as it denigrates both the power and majesty of God by making his existence dependent on words..

-->
@Ramshutu

You rejecting thousands of years of church tradition doesn't invalidate what it teaches.

-->
@Mopac

Unfortunately no. You’re making some major logical errors, and appear to simply cling to the same faulty argument.

Defining God as Reality doesn’t make God exist.

Reality exists - but does the reality that exist have a mind? Is the reality that exists an entity? Does it have creative ability?

No.

So by definition reality existing does not prove an entity with a mind and creative ability exists - therefore it does not prove yor Hod exists.

-->
@Ramshutu

Your arguments are the type of delusional nonsense that can be expected from someone who doesn't believe in truth.

And if you deny my God, you don't believe in truth.

You really think I'm going to be swayed by someone who has embraced delusion?

Blasphemy against the spirit of truth is not one that I can be charitable towards.

-->
@Ramshutu

Your entire argument is to not accept what I'm saying, which means you aren't talking about the same thing.

I am not making a fallacy.

You are commiting the fallacy of invincible ignorance, as well as a straw man.

You say I'm obsessing over definitions, but that is because you want to talk about a god I don't believe in while pretending you are arguing against my God.

Think about it for a second, how you must look from my perspective, assuming I believe everything I am saying is true. Realize you are wasting your time if you think I am going to compromise on my most deeply held convictions, that come from true knowledge. You have no authority whatsoever, and don't understand what I believe in.

You're being arrogant.

But you could try.a different approach, which is to make an attempt at honestly understanding what I'm saying instead of trying to conform what I am saying to your superstitions.

-->
@Ramshutu

There is no question that God is The Truth, because that is what God means.

Try again.

-->
@Mopac

If God doesn’t exist, he can’t be “the truth” - whether you, the bible, or the dictionary define him as the truth or not.

You're irrationally obsessed with definitions as if they prove anything in this regard - Chewbacca doesn’t exist, no matter how I define him - which illustrates perfectly how faulty your logic is.

But let’s say I accept your premise that God is Reality - though no dictionary defines him as such. The reason you’re entire position falls apart is that while reality exists - God is defined as more than just reality.

God, is Reality, and an entity, and has a mind of some kind, and has motivation of some kind, has intent of some kind, can exercise creative force in some degree.

That’s the error. One of The properties of God exists - good for you. Now show me the direct evidence that allllllll the other properties of God exist. If you can’t do that, you’re not proving God exists, you’re basically arguing that reality exists and you are desperately trying to inject all this other nonsense.

It’s exactly the same error with Chewbacca - furry creatures exist. Chewbacca is a furry creature - but Chewbacca is also fictional, 8 feet tall, and big into interstellar travel and smuggling and existed a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away - do those properties exist - no.

Chewbacca and God definitions fail for the same reason.

-->
@Ramshutu

My God is literally the truth. When you and brutaltruth say my God doesn't exist, you are saying there is no truth.

Having eyes you are blind. Having ears you are deaf. Having a mind, you lack understanding.

Neither you or brutaltruth care about what is true. If you knew the truth you'd recognize what I'm saying.

I hooe that one day you two come to acknowledgment of the truth.

If God doesn't exist, then why does Ice float on water, despite Ice being a solid and solids usually being less dense then liquids? And what would happen if it didn't float above water? Then fish would die and many civilizations that survived off of fish would die as well.

-->
@Ramshutu

Why would anyone ever debate if they didn't value truth? My mind can be changed quite easily. All one has to do is prove me wrong.

-->
@BrutalTruth

If you can find me a single person on this site whose mind can be changed on something
Substantive, I’ll go argue with them :P

-->
@Ramshutu

Why are you still arguing with him dude? Nothing you say is going to change his mind. He embodies the definition of cognitive dissonance.

-->
@Mopac

And you just nailed the rebuttal of your own point.

You defined “God” as “the ultimate reality”.

by this reality, An ultimate reality lead by Vishnu, Allah, or simply has no God at all.... all these things could be said to be “God”, using this definition.

-->
@Ramshutu

Ok, since you don't know how definitions work, I'll give you a lesson...

You defined "chewbacca" as "a furry creature".

By this definition, a dog, a cat, a bear, a racoon, a particularly hairy man... all these things could be said to be a chewbacca.

God is defined as "The supreme or ultimate reality"

So if the image you have in your mind of God is not ultimately real, this image does not fulfill the definition of God, and so you are not actually talking about God.

So do you understand how definitions work now?

-->
@Mopac

Your argument hinges on Chewbacca - the famously furry creature from Star Wars - not being furry?

Bahahaha

-->
@Ramshutu

What dictionary did you pull Chewbacca from?

You made it up.

Here are some definitions of the word "arbitrary" for you, courtesy Merriam-webster..

"Based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something."

"existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will"

-->
@Mopac

lol which definitions do you think I’m making up? That Chewbacca is furry? Or that furry creatures exist.

Ultimate Reality exists - and God is defined as ultimate reality - therefore God exists.

Furry creatures exist - and Chewbacca is defined as a furry creature - therefore Chewbacca exists.

Your logic is so bad, that it means Chewbacca exists... calling me an idiot doesn’t make your logic any better.

-->
@Ramshutu

You are making up definitions.

You proved nothing except your own arbitrariness.

You're an idiot.

-->
@Mopac

I just “proved” Chewbacca exists using the same logic you are using to prove God existsz

If I can prove a fictional being exists using your logic - your logic is wrong.

-->
@Alec

The bible isn't God.

-->
@Ramshutu

I'm not twisting anything. You are the one striving about the meanings of words.

I know what my church teaches. You are not going to overthrow thousands of years of church tradition through semantic fumbling and ignorance.

You are wrong, and you are wrong because your premise is "God exists? No! Anything but that, this can't be true!"

@Mopac

The bible contradicts it's self a lot.

I posted the 108th comment. This means that it is tied for the most number of comments on Debateart as of right now(https://www.debateart.com/debates/309)

-->
@Mopac

A definition isn’t a logical fallacy; twisting the definition in the way you do to argue something exists IS a logical fallacy.

Chewbacca is a furred animal - furred animals exist - Chewbacca exists.

Using the same logic you are using to prove God, I can prove Chewbacca exists.

-->
@Ramshutu

A definition is not a logical fallacy, it is a way of making clear what we are talking about.

God is The Ultimate Reality.

There is simply no way I can overcome YOUR fallacy of invincible ignorance.

-->
@Mopac

“Ultimate Reality” exists - this is true - reality exists.
“Creatures with fur” exists - this is also true - we see creatures with fur.

God is defined as the ultimate reality. This is true - this is how God is defined
Chewbacca is defined as a creature with fur. This is true - this is how Chewbacca is defined

As God is defined as the ultimate reality, and ultimate reality exists - God exists by definition.
As Chewbacca is defined as a creature with fur, and creatures with fur exits - Chewbacca exists by definition.

The logic between the two is identical, and neatly points out how logically fatuous your argument is. The reason this argument doesn’t prove Chewbacca exists is the same reason yours doesn’t prove God exists.

-->
@MagicAintReal

My grammer is fine, and my arguments are lucid.

If you are having trouble understanding, it is probably because you take me to mean something other than exactly what I am saying.

It's a very aimple argument that can be summed up in a sentence.

There is only One God, and that God is the very truth itself, reality as it truly is.

If you don't believe that there is a reality as it truly is, you are crazy. Even atheists understand this. Their problem is that they can't reconcile their superstitions about God with how God is actually understood by the church.

So the only atheist argument is to nake God something other than God.

-->
@Ramshutu

The purpose of definition is to make clear what I am talking about.

I am talking about the ultimate reality.

It is not arbitrary.

You are being arbitrary, and because of that we aren't talking about the same thing.

You are using a straw man because you don't understand how definitions work.

Straw man

Invincible ignorance.

Until you accept the definition, you are wrong and proving the point I made in my arguments that the only atheist argument against God is to make God something other than God.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, ironically being God's advocate at the same time.

If god doesn't exist, why does Ice float above water? And what would happen if it didn't freeze in this way?

-->
@Mopac

Well actually I was highlighting that your grammar and spelling hindered the understanding of your posts, even when I put perfectly unambiguous terms in the place of the ambiguous terms you used.
There was question about whether or not grammar affected Pro's performance; it did.

-->
@Mopac

The issue is not that I don’t understand the argument you are making, the issue is that the argument you’re making doesn’t prove God exists, or even comes close.

You’re arguing that God exists because of how you - and others defined God. That’s not how definition works.

Reality exists.

Creatures with hair exist.

Arguing that because God is defined as ultimate reality -mhe must exist is exactly the same as arguing that’s chewbacca exists because he is a creature with hair and creatures with hair exist.

It doesn’t work that way

-->
@MagicAintReal

You are establishing that you don't understand what I'm saying.

It's really simple.

God is The Truth.

The concept of Reality as it truly is would be The Image, The Son.

Reality as it Truly Is would be is The Father

To accept that the father and the son are one is only activated and made true with the spirit of truth, or the holy spirit.

Father, son, holy spirit.

It is an acknowledgment that we as created beings use the medium of creation to relate to God. That being the case, God dwells among us as sanctifies all of creation.

Without this, you have the various gnostic heresies which damn everything in creation, because they don't accept that The Word of God, which is God, became flesh and dwells among us.

Without this, it also means we are totally detached from God. But we aren't, God is with us.

-->
@Ramshutu

No, your premise is "God cannot exist"

So there is no argument that will convince you.

Even when The Truth itself is literally God.

How can I convince that God exists if you won't even accept what God means?

You qant me to prove your superstitious understanding of God is God.

I can't do this.

And so, until you say That The Ultimate Reality exists, and this is what God means, I will not recant my opinion that you are an idiot.

End of story. Begone from me, wicked one.

So if The Peanut Butter of a Sandwich is Flavor, and with The Jelly of Flavor we know a Sandwich through this Peanut Butter, what does that mean? It means that a Sandwich is FLAVOR AS IT TRULY IS, and this is expressed through the doctrine of The Trinity: The Peanut Butter, The Jelly, The Sandwich.

So what am I establishing?

-->
@Mopac

No, your argument is illogical and atrocious. you are attempting to define God into existance. Indeed, you are doing a horrible job at convincing me - and anyone because your argument is incredibly poor.

If you come up with a logical, or reasonable argument then we can talk - but what you’re doing here is effectively saying that you can prove God exists, because you’re saying god is reality and so must exist. Logic doesn’t work that way.

-->
@Ramshutu

I'm not going to throw away thousands of years of church tradition just because you want to arbitrarily reject what God means in order to justify yourself.

You have baggage. You are superstitious. You don't want to believe. I am not going to go theough all this for no profit.

The Ultimate Reality is God.

That is that.

-->
@Mopac

You almost had it!

Just because you say my mother is 2000lbs, doesn’t make it true.

Just because you say God is “the ultimate reality”, doesn’t make that true either!

This is the massive flaw I everything you’re saying that you just don’t understand.

Just because you, and any number of other people have “decided” that the word God means “Reality” doesn’t mean that’s God exists - because tomorrow a bunch of people could get together and decide that’s not the word means - God wouldn’t cease to exist then, would he.

Reality obviously exists, but that doesn’t mean God exists, because God is more than just “reality” - even if you accept your definition, he’s an entity, with an opinion, a mind, powers, etc. That’s the hilarious error you make:

-->
@Ramshutu

The truth is that your mother is 2,000 lbs

Your mother isn't 2,000 lbs, and this statement is false.

Therefore, the Truth doesn't exist.

^
Your argument, which amounts to, because people say things about the truth that aren't true that means there is no truth.

I'll retract my statement that you are an idiot if you admit that The Ultimate Reality, which is what the word God means, exists.

-->
@Ramshutu

The Ultimate Reality exists.

You're an idiot.

-->
@Mopac

I understand, it’s just wrong.

A fictional God in a series of books is also defined as Ultimate Reality. The God defined in Good Omens is the Ultimate Reality too. The God in Monty Othtons Holy Grail is defined as the Ultimate Reality.

All of those things share the same definition as your example - yet they don’t exist.

You - a human being - saying that God isn’t the ultimate reality doesn’t mean he exists.

-->
@RationalMadman

The ultimate reality isn't an intellectual idea, it is what it is.

The whole point of the trinity is to make this clear.

I'm not talking about an idea, I'm talking about what that is.

Is an idea the ultimate reality?

No understanding at all, I tell you.

-->
@Ramshutu

You are deserving of mockery.

-->
@Mopac

The overarching maker in the wheel of time was defined as The Ultimate Reality. That God is fictional.

Shouting at me at how good your definition is doesn’t make your God exist.

-->
@Ramshutu

Definitions make clear what we are talking about.

What does The Ultimate Reality mean?

Think about that.

-->
@Mopac

You literally just claimed it.... again.

-->
@Ramshutu

No one is claiming that.

Now look at what the definition says.

The Ultimate Reality.

*throws hands up in the air*