Instigator / Con
Points: 29

The Claim That The Christian God Exists

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 5 votes the winner is ...
BrutalTruth
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Pro
Points: 25
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.
Round 1
Published:
Introduction

I'm not one for brown nosing the voters with pleasantries and nice words to my opponent. I am straight to the point and emotionally indifferent. With that said, allow me to begin my opening arguments.

What Is The Christian God?

The Christian bible does not give any definition of the Christian god. In fact, the Christian bible doesn't even attempt to prove that the Christian god exists. For all intents and purposes, the Christian bible itself is, in fact, the only piece of "evidence" of the Christian god at all. I use "evidence" in quotes because the Christian bible is merely a book. A book is nothing more than several pieces of paper bound together with text filling the pages. Ergo, a book, in and of itself, cannot serve as evidence of anything other than:

  • The existence of paper
  • The existence of the material used to bind the book (leather, for example)
  • A being capable of making paper
  • A being capable of making the material used to bind the book
  • A being capable of binding together paper with the material used to bind the book
  • The existence of ink
  • A being capable of creating ink
  • A being capable of using ink to create text
  • The existence of a language
  • A being capable of writing said language on paper with ink

The Christian bible does, however, describe the Christian god in four ways:

  • God is spirit (John 4:24)
  • God is light (1 John 1:5)
  • God is love (1 John 4:16)
  • God is a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29)
This is, however, irrelevant, as the Christian bible offers no evidence to prove its claims of the Christian god being spirit, light, love, or a consuming fire. Essentially, all the Christian bible actually does is make claims, and expect the reader to accept these claims as facts.


Why Merely Making Claims Isn't Enough

I think my opponent, and the reader, can agree that we are all human. There are only two forms of knowledge available to humans:

  • Knowledge a priori
  • Knowledge a posteriori
What Is Knowledge A Priori And A Posteriori?

Both of these terms refer to the method by which knowledge can be justifiably believed as true. To be justified in believing something is to have an epistemic reason to support it, or, more plainly stated: a reason for thinking it is true.

Knowldge a priori is knowledge that is justifiably believed to be true without the need of empirical experience. An example of knowledge a priori: All bachelors are unmarried. The term "bachelor" is defined as an unmarried male human by the English language. Therefore, a male human can only be classified as a bachelor if he is unmarried. Thus, if a male human is classified as a bachelor, then the male human is unmarried.

Knowledge a posteriori is knowledge that cannot be justifiably believed as true without empirical experience. An example of knowledge a posteriori: It is currently raining outside. One cannot know that it is currently raining outside without either seeing it, hearing it, smelling it, tasting it, or touching it. If one of these empirical senses have not experienced rain in the current time, then knowledge that it is currently raining is not justifiably believed as true.

The Christian God Is Claimed To Be An Entity

Unfortunately, the Christian god, being an actual entity, does not meet the criteria of something that can be known a priori. Entities are things that can only be known a posteriori. In other words: Only through empirical experience. If a human has not seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched this Christian god, then said human cannot justifiably believe that the Christian god exists.

In Conclusion

My conclusion is very simple: The Christian god is an entity, and an entity can only be known through empirical experience. Therefore, unless my opponent wants to prove that they have empirically experienced this Christian god, then they cannot justifiably believe that the Christian god exists, nor can they prove it exists.

References:

(1) The Christian bible

Published:
Christianity, at its core, is Monotheism. That is, the belief in One Supreme Being(1) as being worthy of being called God. The Existence(2) highest in authority(3) as understood in Orthodox(4) Christian theology(5) is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality(6). What that means is The best, most extreme, basic, fundamental, reality that is the source and cause from which everything arises, incapable of division and separation(7).

Or really quite simply, THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH AS IT TRULY IS.

 It is written

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."(8)

So what is this Word? It is also written...

"Do not err, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth"(9)

So the word is TRUTH, and The Word was in the beginning of God and with God. So God is The Truth, as is God's Word.

What is it that activates this? For you to believe that The Word is what The Word says it is, God Almighty, The Truth, The Spirit of Truth must be there to activate it. 

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."(10)

"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me"(11)

and

"when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak:"(12)


So Christianity understands God through The Trinity, which is Father, Son, Holy Ghost. 

As demontrated, The Son is The Word of Truth, and The Holy Ghost is The Spirit of Truth.

But to make even clearer what The Son is, for "The Son is One Essence with The Father"(13),  and what The Word means, it is written..

"giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist."(14)

So The Son is the image of the invisible God, The Word of God. If you know The Son, you know The Father, as it is also written..

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake."(15)


So what ties The Trinity all together? What is the one thing that unites them all together so that we can say they are distinct but at the same time, One God, One Essence, and Undivided?(16)


THE TRUTH

So it is through belief in The Trinity, a confession of The Oneness of The Truth. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. 


The Christian God exists, because The Christian God is The Truth.


And even if you don't understand The Bible or Christianity, even if you believe in all sorts of things about the truth, I would hope that we all can at least agree that The Truth exists. As the God that Christians worship is The Truth, well...

The Christian God Exists


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Definition 1 (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.


Definition 1 mass noun Existence.

Definition 1 Highest in rank or authority.

Definition 1 Following or conforming to the traditional or generally accepted rules or beliefs of a religion, philosophy, or practice.

Definition 1 The study of the nature of God and religious belief.

Definition 1 capitalized the supreme or ultimate reality

Definition 1 c he best or most extreme of its kind : Utmost
Definition 3 a the source or cause from which something arises
Definition 3 b Basic, Fundamental
Definition 3 c incapable of further analysis, division, or separation

(8) The Gospel of John 1:1-5

(9) The Epistle of James 1:16-18

(10) The Gospel of John 14:26

(11) The Gospel of John 15:26

(12) The Gospel of John 16:13

The Nicene Creed states "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made"

(14) The Epistle of Colossians 1:12-17

(15) The Gospel of John 14:6-11

Round 2
Published:
Christianity, at its core, is Monotheism. That is, the belief in One Supreme Being(1) as being worthy of being called God. The Existence(2) highest in authority(3) as understood in Orthodox(4) Christian theology(5) is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality(6). What that means is The best, most extreme, basic, fundamental, reality that is the source and cause from which everything arises, incapable of division and separation(7).

Refutation

Above is the entire premise for my opponent's argument, thus their argument is refuted before it even begins. Let me explain: We are debating the existence of the Christian god here. The only sources my opponent has used are several English dictionaries, none of which are endorsed by any Christian religion as having the authority to define, nor describe, the god of the Christian religion. That being said, my opponent's entire premise is rendered false, and, by proxy, their entire argument.

Further Arguments

As for the rest of my opponent's argument: They claim that the Christian god exists because it is "the truth." My opponent references the Christian bible with these claims. However, my opponent offers no evidence nor proof of the Christian bible's claims being true, thus again their argument is false. Let me make it very clear how this works: My opponent is the one making the claim, thus the burden of proof is theirs. One needs to do more than quote a book to prove an entity exists.

Conclusion

As I said in the description of this debate, the Christian god can only be defined by the Christian bible. The sources used for my opponent's semantic argumentation hold no authority to define this god, thus the premise for their argument is entirely false. If my opponent wishes to continue with definitions of this god, they must be consistent with the Christian bible's definition of it(see my opening argument for said definition, which my opponent has yet to even respond to, much less refute)The Christian bible does not define, nor describe, the Christian god as an "ultimate reality," thus the definitions my opponent has given are inconsistent with the Christian bible's definition/description of the Christian god, thereby rendering false his argument. While this alone renders the rest of my opponent's argument false, it can also be said that my opponent offers no evidence nor proof for it, thus even if their arguments weren't already rendered false, the claims their arguments rest upon are yet unproven, thus their argument is utterly refuted anyway.
Published:
We are debating the existence of the Christian god here. The only sources my opponent has used are several English dictionaries, none of which are endorsed by any Christian religion as having the authority to define, nor describe, the god of the Christian religion. That being said, my opponent's entire premise is rendered false, and, by proxy, their entire argument.


The instigator of this argument is missing the entire point of my argument.

Instigator, in his haste, decided to refute my opening statement without fully comprehending how the rest of what I posted, sourced from The Bible, shows that two of the most academically respected dictionaries of the English language are accurate to the Christian conception of God, which is in fact older than the English language. The Christian God most certainly is The Truth, and Merriam Webster acknowledges this by defining God with a capital G as "The Supreme or Ultimate Reality". Oxford Also acknowledges this by defining God as "The Supreme Being", both of which are different ways of saying the same thing. I have demonstrated in my argument that The Word of God is Truth, and that The Word of God is The Most Perfect Image of God. I have demonstrated that The Holy Spirit is The Spirit of Truth. 

So if The Most Perfect Image of God is Truth, and with The Spirit of Truth we know God through this Image, what does that mean? It means that God is THE TRUTH AS IT TRULY IS, and this is expressed through the doctrine of The Trinity.  

So what am I establishing? Instigator had terms before my accepting this debate that whatever dictionaries I used were consistent with the biblical understanding of God. I have demonstrated that the definitions that I referenced are absolutely valid, and in doing so have established that The God that Christianity recognizes, and besides... THE ONLY GOD THAT I, A CHRISTIAN, PERSONALLY ACKNOWLEDGE IS THE TRUTH.

Now, there is absolutely no debate about whether or not The Truth exists, and Instigator knows this very well. In fact, all atheists know this very well. That is why the only possible route that an atheist can use in order to debate the existence of God is to attack a straw man by making God something other than The Truth.

Now, I have chosen to use these dictionaries and the bible to prove my point about this, but if I wanted to, there are thousands of years worth of theological writings that establish a consistent understanding in Orthodox Theology that the God of Christianity is The Truth. 

In fact, nothing about Christianity will even make sense without this understanding. Of what profit is it to strive for dispassion and the conquering of the lusts of mind in flesh? Why not just live a life of bestial hedonism? Because if you love THE TRUTH, living for the sake of vain indulgence is in opposition to this as it makes you blind to reality.




As for the rest of my opponent's argument: They claim that the Christian god exists because it is "the truth." My opponent references the Christian bible with these claims. However, my opponent offers no evidence nor proof of the Christian bible's claims being true, thus again their argument is false. Let me make it very clear how this works: My opponent is the one making the claim, thus the burden of proof is theirs. One needs to do more than quote a book to prove an entity exists.

The God I am speaking of is literally THE TRUTH. Not, this conception of God is the truth, but THE TRUTH IS GOD. There is a difference. 

Instigator is saying, to rephrase...

"Prove to me it is true that there is truth!"

It is absolutely unnecessary and distracting from my argument to prove that the bible's claims are true. The point here is that whatever the bible says, the God of Christianity is THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH. That is what God means, nothing else. 

How do you prove that The Truth exists? It seems absurd to think that the existence of The Truth could be proven by using appeals to Truth. If you doubt The Truth exists, do you not at least know that it is true that you have doubts? It's an unreasonable demand, to ask for proof of the truth.

What else is unreasonable? To say, "It is The Truth that there is no truth!" or "The Truth is a lie!"


We all know The Truth exists, I would hope, and The Christian God is literally The Truth. This is not only The God of Christianity, but Lord Over All whether or not they choose to acknowledge this.



"To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."




The only argument atheists have against God is to make God something other than what God is, which is THE TRUTH. 


And if Instigator continues to use a straw man, false god, or lying vanity in the place of The God of Christianity, which is THE TRUTH, he will be guilty of the fallacy of INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE(2) and there is no argument I could possibly make that would be sufficient enough for instigator to accept his argument as being invalid.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(1) John 18:37

invincible ignorance -- the fallacy of insisting on the legitimacy of one's position in the face of contradictory facts. Statements like "I really don't care what the experts say; no one is going to convince me that I'm wrong"; "nothing you say is going to change my mind"; "yeah, okay, whatever!" are examples of this fallacy.


Round 3
Published:
What my opponent has done, with their arguments and references, is prove that the Christian bible claims that the Christian god is "the truth." I have gone over my opponent's argument over and over, just to make sure I'm not missing anything, and have been unable to find where my opponent specifies what this "truth" is. There are many truths in the world. For example: Fire is hot, ice is cold, trees are mostly green, metal is hard. These are all truths, proven by the empirical observation of tangible reality. What truth is my opponent claiming this god is? All truths? For the sake of argument, let's assume that: My opponent is claiming that the Christian god embodies all truths in existence, and is the source of all these truths. With that I ask: Where is the proof? The fact remains that a book, bible or dictionary or any other book, alone does not serve as evidence nor proof. My opponent has proven that a book says the Christian god is the truth sure enough, but where is the proof of this claim being true? Before one can prove that the Christian god is truth, one must first prove the Christian god even exists, for something that does not exist cannot be anything at all, truth or otherwise. We are therefore right back to square one.

The fact remains that my opponent has done nothing but make a host of claims, and show how a few books agree with these claims. My opponent has yet to prove these claims to be facts of reality; They have yet to prove that the Christian god even exists, much less is any "truth." Until my opponent proves these things, their claims and arguments remain worthless and void of merit. Indeed if my opponent's argumentation had any merit, then every bible of every religion would serve as proof that they all exist, which would cancel them all out, since most religions claim their gods to be "the one true God."

Just for good measure, I'm going to follow my opponent's logic in an attempt to prove that leprechauns exist:

leprechaun

lep·re·chaun | \ˈle-prə-ˌkän,  -ˌkȯn\
Definition of leprechaun 

: a mischievous elf (see ELF sense 1) of Irish folklore usually believed to reveal the hiding place of treasure if caught(1)

As one can see, the Mirriam Webster dictionary says that a leprechaun is a mischievous elf that hides treasure. Because this dictionary acknowledges this, leprechauns must exist, right?

Ridiculous arguments will be ridiculous arguments.

Sources


Published:
Instigator states...

What my opponent has done, with their arguments and references, is prove that the Christian bible claims that the Christian god is "the truth." I have gone over my opponent's argument over and over, just to make sure I'm not missing anything, and have been unable to find where my opponent specifies what this "truth" is. There are many truths in the world. For example: Fire is hot, ice is cold, trees are mostly green, metal is hard. These are all truths, proven by the empirical observation of tangible reality. What truth is my opponent claiming this god is? All truths? For the sake of argument, let's assume that: My opponent is claiming that the Christian god embodies all truths in existence, and is the source of all these truths. With that I ask: Where is the proof? The fact remains that a book, bible or dictionary or any other book, alone does not serve as evidence nor proof. My opponent has proven that a book says the Christian god is the truth sure enough, but where is the proof of this claim being true? Before one can prove that the Christian god is truth, one must first prove the Christian god even exists, for something that does not exist cannot be anything at all, truth or otherwise. We are therefore right back to square one.

When I, and indeed the Bible are talking about The Truth, what is not being discussed is a truth, or all truths, but THE TRUTH ITSELF. What is The Truth itself? Well, if we could imagine asking God this question, and imagine a response back, the answer that God would give back with this understanding is...

" I AM THAT I AM"(1)

In other words, The Truth is whatever The Truth is. Reality as it really is. Actuality. The Absolute.

So that being the case, The One God is not the same as a truth. In fact, the mystery of the resurrection can be posited in another way,

"If a truth dies, does The Truth die?"

How can I explain this in another way? As of the time of this writing, Donald Trump is President of The United States of America. It is true that Donald Trump is the President. Before Donald Trump was The President, it was not true. After Donald Trump leaves office, it will not be true. So right now, when I say "Donald Trump is The President of The United States", it will be a true statement. If I were to say this in the future after Donald Trump has left office, "Donald Trump is The President of The United States", it will not be true. So in this particular sense, you can say, "a truth has died". What that means is, this is truth is not eternal, it is a truth that has "died".

Now, if a truth dies, does that mean that The Truth dies? Of course not! In fact, The Truth itself will always be, even if everything in all of creation is destroyed. You can't kill The Truth. 

So Instigator can kill The Word of God by refusing to believe it is what it says it is, but even if Instigator crucifies Jesus, He will rise again, because The Truth is Eternal. The Word will always be with us, and even if this word is pronounced differently, the scriptures say, "our sufficiency is of God; who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."

I am not trying to prove the existence of God with a book. I am establishing that the God that I speak of, and the God of Christianity is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, which I have done, because this is a DEFINITION, and a definition is..

"a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol"

or

"a statement expressing the essential nature of something"

or

"the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making definite and clear"(3)


And so I have thoroughly demonstrated that when I speak of God I am indeed speaking about THE ULTIMATE REALITY, and what that means is that there is literally nothing more true than God, and to make God something untrue is to not respect the definition of the word. 


As I believe I said earlier, the only atheist argument against God is to make God something other than what God is. Why is this the case? Because atheism is a position that is rooted in superstition(4). It is my sincere hope that Instigator abandons his superstitious position, and comes into acknowledgement of The Truth.


Instigator makes an argument that I feel is hardly worth addressing, but I will for the sake of being thorough... He claims that...

As one can see, the Mirriam(SIC) Webster dictionary says that a leprechaun is a mischievous elf that hides treasure. Because this dictionary acknowledges this, leprechauns must exist, right?

A Leprechaun, obviously, is not defined to be ULTIMATE REALITY. To say, "God exists because God is in the dictionary, so Leprechauns exist because leprechauns are in the dictionary" is a nonsensical argument, and my opponent knows this to be the case, because he is mocking what he falsely presupposes my argument to be. No, the purpose of definitions are to make clear what it is we are talking about. 

But yes, leprechauns actually exist as the definition says... In Irish folklore. In stories and fables. 


The God of Christianity exists, because The God that Christianity recognizes as being God is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, a God that by necessity must exist for anything to be real or true at all. If nothing is ultimately real, you can't say anything is true and be telling the truth. If there is God, I can at least of a surety say one thing that is true....

GOD IS THE TRUTH


The Christian God exists, I am more certain of this than anything, and I would hope that others can be as certain through the reading of this debate.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(1) Exodus 3:14

(2) 2 Corinthians 3:5-6


Definition of superstition 

1aa belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
ban irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

Round 4
Published:
I now understand what my opponent is saying. I did before, but the argument seemed so ridiculous to me that I wanted to make sure I was understanding it correctly.

My opponent is claiming this this god is truth itself. They are simply wording it incorrectly. The correct way to word my opponent's claim is: "God is truth," not "God is the truth." The words "God is truth" imply that this god is the very essence of truth itself. The words "God is the truth" imply that this god is a specific truth, which is why I was confused.

That said, there is one major point of contention: Truth isn't a thing. It is an intellectual idea. If this world has a creator, that creator can only be a thing, as how could an intellectual idea create anything? Only an entity has the ability to affect the physical world, therefore if this god exists, and it is indeed the creator of all things, or even the creator of just one thing, then it is an entity, and an entity is not an intellectual idea, therefore an entity is not "truth." It really doesn't matter how many books define an entity as "truth," an entity's being is incompatible with the idea of what truth is.

I conclude that unless my opponent can either prove that an intellectual idea can create something/affect the physical world, or prove that an entity can be an intellectual idea, their entire premise is false, and they would have to prove that this god, indeed an entity, exists.

My opponent has the floor.
Published:
God is not simply "The Truth", God is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, which by definition exists. That is what is meant by "The Truth".

And certainly, we have no problem confessing that reality exists. The Ultimate Reality is Reality in the truest sense, even the only absolutely true reality.


God is not an intellectual idea. If God only existed in thought, that would mean that thought was a greater reality than God. If that were the case, God wouldn't be "The Ultimate Reality", and the definition would not be fulfilled. 

On that note, if one would ponder the meaning of "The Ultimate Reality", and really grasp what this means, what we are talking about is really beyond defining. God is not contained in a definition. That which Truly Is, in a great way, is beyond our comprehension. If we could comprehend it, well, it wouldn't be what it is.



God is not merely an idea. We understand God, like all things, through concepts and images, but God itself is not these things. God is The Ultimate Reality.


That is why in Christian Theology we have The Trinity. The Trinity acknowledges that that what we see of God is The Image even though God is always there, in the Image and transcending the Image.

Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, The Most Perfect Image and Word of Truth, and The Spirit of Truth.

When you have all three together, you have the Triune God, who is really One God. Not three Gods. Not a God in three parts. It is the mystery of the faith that is The Gospel in itself.


And so we believe on The Father, through The Son, by The Holy Spirit. 


Now without God, there could be nothing. If there is no ultimate reality, nothing is ultimately real. Clearly, there is some form of existence. If there is any reality to existence at all, that reality comes from God. Something must exist in truth. If it doesn't exist in truth, it doesn't exist. Nothing doesn't exist. Nothing is the absence of existence. Clearly there is something. Even illusory things exist in some sense. If nothing else, as perceptions. So even though these illusions are not ultimately real, they are real in some sense. That which is Ultimately Real is not an illusion, it is Reality as it Truly Is. That Reality as it Truly is we call God.



And without God, there could be nothing. Everything by necessity must come from God. If you understand that God is The Ultimate Reality, you can see how God is...

Omnipresent(1), everywhere at once, even nearer than your breath. You can't hide from God.

Omnipotent(2), wielding all power, force, authority. Indeed, God is the creator of ALL THINGS.

Omniscient(3), posessing all knowledge. If it can be known, it is known by God, because it is in God.


And accepting God's omnibenevolence(4) is a simple matter of taking Truth as the greatest good.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

present in all places at all times

Almighty having absolute power over all

possessed of universal or complete knowledge

possessing perfect or unlimited goodness.
Round 5
Published:
My opponent's premise and argument remains the same. Here it is:

God is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, which by definition exists.
They "prove" this by showing how a dictionary says it, and the Christian bible agrees with the dictionary.

Unfortunately for my opponent, as I've said multiple times already, a couple of books saying "God is the Ultimate Reality/Supreme Being" does not prove that is the case. I hereby proclaim to my opponent's premise, and indeed entire argument as listed above, commits the logical fallacy Argumentum ad dictionarium, which is essentially the act of pulling out a dictionary to support your assertions. The definitions of words do not prove claims, unless the claim is that a word is defined a certain way. Since the claim is actually that a god exists, that is not the case, therefore my opponent's entire premise and argument is fallacious and thus invalid.

I rest my case.
Published:
Instigator is a textbook argument from invincible ignorance.


The Ultimate Reality is God. That is what the word "God" means.

The Ultimate Reality exists, because that is what The Ultimate Reality means.


God Exists.


This is The Christian God. 


This is what Orthodox Christianity teaches. 


I know what I believe in.





Added:
Arguments "God is real because the Bible says so you're ignorant if you don't agree" is the reason that people don't take theism seriously, as a theist.
Added:
Well, since this discussion has descended into a name calling temper tantrum (despite a denial to the contrary), I'm going to stop responding here and add another name to my block list.
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
I don't want Raltar's vote, because his votes are worthless. He doesn't vote on what is. He votes on what his mind creates, like a true theist.
To destroy, in the way that I used the word, is to easily defeat. I easily defeated Mopac, therefore I destroyed him. I don't care if you agree with the word usage, and it certainly has absolutely no bearing on who won the debate.
I'm not some child who throws a tantrum when he doesn't get his way. I get angry when I see a place of intellect taken over by idiots. You can't seriously tell me you don't find votes for Mopac in THIS debate to be idiotic. I clearly won dude. You'd have to be a complete imbecile to think Mopac won.
Instigator
#182
Added:
--> @BrutalTruth
The only specific thing you said was your complaint about BoP - which was corrected by Raltar.
The second thing you said was that Raltar claimed you didn’t provide an effective rebuttal - and then say yor rebutdak destroyed Mopac. That’s pretty generic to me, nothing specific, no arguments mentioned, no particular issue outlined.
I would completely disagree with your assessment that you “destroyed mopac” too - you were effective, but you by no means destroyed him, in any way shape or form. I can underand how someone could come down the other side on your position for that very reason. I’m not saying this to annoy you, I’m saying this because it seems that you’re just getting annoyed with Raltar because he didn’t vote the way you think he should, rather than because his reasons were wholly unjustified.
You won, the system worked; why not ask something constructive - such as what you could have done to win Raltars vote.
Added:
--> @Ramshutu, @Raltar
@Ramshutu Did you not read my comments to him? I pointed out two very specific things in his vote that were incorrect. Did you simply ignore them, or do you just feel like further annoying me by making bullshit comments? There was nothing vague at all about my "allegations." Oh, and showing all 5 of his arguments to be guilty of the exact same fallacy destroys an argument. That's how.
@Raltar: "and you clearly set this debate up knowing in advance what Mopac was going to do and in a way that would sabotage him while giving you an excuse to say nothing in defense of your own position."
Seriously? You think this debate would have been any different at all if I hadn't made rules? Dude, Mopac didn't even FOLLOW the rules! And I STILL beat him! The only reason I made those rules is because Mopac's argument is utterly fucking ridiculous and not worthy of debate, because he's essentially trying to "define" his god into existence. It's a pathetic and laughable excuse for an argument that you apparently support(what does that say about you, sir?). But, as I said, he ignored my rules and went on with his idiotic arguments, and I defeated them easily. I didn't even need to try, because trying to "define" something into existence is self defeating. All I needed to do is point out the fallacy and walk away.
Instigator
#180
Added:
--> @BrutalTruth, @Raltar
I’m actually going to back up Raltar here. While I completely disagree with his conclusion, and his vote: I have no reason to conclude it was done for any other reason than this is how he viewed your debate.
I frequently have people that make exactly these same accusations when I have gone to fairly great lengths to justify the vote I have made. By all means, clarify if you think one of the things he’s said is not correct, that both makes people better debaters and better voters; but I really can’t stand people making bland and non-specific allegations of bias like this.
I will personally say that while I believe your arguments did win, and refuted pros position - I disagree with you that you absolutely destroyed his position, I can happily explain what you could have done better, or while I feel like that: but I can see people coming down the other way on this as a result.
Added:
--> @BrutalTruth
We talked previously about the "burden of proof" issue and I agreed that you didn't have one. However I also pointed out that the way you dodged the burden of proof was sketchy and you clearly set this debate up knowing in advance what Mopac was going to do and in a way that would sabotage him while giving you an excuse to say nothing in defense of your own position. So, per Ramshutu's advice, had I been able to change my vote, you would have also lost points on conduct for that. In regards to the rest of what you said, you can believe whatever you want, but most of the mods on this site are atheist, so if they are biased, it surely isn't in my favor, or Mopac's favor. So you may want to give your theory some more thought, Chief.
Added:
--> @Raltar
It doesn't, but there appears to be nothing any of us can do about it. I had several issues with your vote, because several of your reasons given were invalid, such as claiming I have a burden of proof, when even if I hadn't written a description, I wouldn't have, because I'm not making a claim, and saying I didn't provide an effective rebuttal, when my rebuttal utterly destroyed Mopac's entire argument, which can be clearly and easily seen by anyone with the ability to read and interpret the English language. Your vote was full of bias. You were looking for any reason you possibly could to vote against me because I'm an atheist in a debate against theism, and when you couldn't find any valid reason at all, you made up reasons. I can't believe the mods actually allowed that vote to stand, but I'm glad they did, because it shows me how biased even the mods are, and shows me what to expect from this site in terms of objectivity in moderation, and likelihood of actually winning a debate based on the arguments instead of what the voter personally believes.
I may have still won, but the fact that Mopac got any votes at all proves that this isn't a very good site for debate.
Instigator
#177
Added:
--> @Ramshutu, @BrutalTruth
As we (Ram, myself and Brutal) discussed several days ago (before Thanksgiving), I had asked Bsh1 to let me change my vote for this debate.
However, it looks like Virtuoso got to it first and decided that it is "more than sufficient."
I don't know if that makes it possible for the mods to still take it down or if we are stuck with it now...
BUT, even if I had changed the vote, it would not have really mattered. The only change I would have made was to remove what I said about the "burden of proof" and instead penalize Con on conduct points for evading the burden of proof by setting up an unfair debate (as Ram suggested I do). As such, Con actually gets more points from my current vote than he would otherwise, and since it looks like he is going to win anyway, changing my vote wouldn't even be to his advantage anymore.
Hopefully this resolves any further dispute over this issue.
Added:
--> @Wylted
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wylted // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
>Reason for decision: See vote
>Reason for Mod Action: This is borderline so as per the standards, we will let the vote stand.
************************************************************************
Added:
--> @Raltar
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ralter // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments
>Reason for decision: See vote
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote is more than sufficient
************************************************************************
Added:
--> @Alec
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Alec // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for sources, conduct, and arguments.
>Reason for decision:
Better conduct: The BoP was on Pro and Pro didn't prove anything except using cites from the bible. Although there is proof of God's existence(sadly), Pro failed to present any proof of God whatsoever. Con wins by my vote.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to survey the arguments and the conduct point is not sufficiently explained
************************************************************************
Added:
--> @Ramshutu, @BrutalTruth
The whole world can deny The Ultimate Reality. It is that it is.
Contender
#172
Added:
--> @Mopac
It doesn't really matter whether you can see your own stupidity or not, because everyone else can. I don't expect to be able convince someone that they're wrong when they insist that they're right even in the face of overwhelming proof that they aren't. It would be quite insane of me to expect to change the mind of someone who is cognitively dissonant. It is good enough for me that every person, regardless of what they personally believe(atheist, theist, anyone) is going to take one look at the insanity of your words here, and understand that you are utterly, and indeed laughably, unreasonable.
Instigator
#171
Added:
--> @Mopac
Firstly, it’s not irrelevant nonsense, it’s an abstract logic problem that uses the same logic as you, that helps explain the logical error.
Are you dismissing me the example because you don’t know the answer, or because you don’t want to answer knowing that it may deleterious to your position?
Secondly: Your whole argument is based on claiming God exists because of the way God is defined. Prior to the dictionary (a few hundred years), and the Bible (a few thousand), God and truth wasn’t defined in the way you are claiming because they weren’t defined at all.
When your “proof” of something’s existance is based on the definition of words: that is “defining it into existance”. This is exactly what you are doing it, and so far, you’ve gone dozens of pages saying that this is not what you’re doing, only to continually repeat the poor logic.
What is pretty clear here: is throughout these comments you’re trying to provide any actual explanation or respond to any arguments, you are almost invariably just repeating - over and over again - the same shoddy argument. If you can’t defend your position, this is probably not a good place to be.
#5
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
After reading this debate several times, I feel baffled. Con elects not to challange the validity of Pros claim that the the truth or ultimate reality is God, and therefore God exists by definition. To deny that as truth would be intellectually suicidal, rendering cons entire argument pointlessly untruthful, so I have to say I am astounded that they made absolutely no counter arguments to how Christianity views God in order to place a more challenging burden of proof onto Pro throughout the entire debate, except for the 4 descriptions of God which don't support cons case that God must be an entity, and therefore evidence should be physical. What I am left with is weighing the unchallenged claim that the Ultimate Reality exists, with the uncited claim that God is an entity of spirit which creates things, therefore requiring Pro to present evidence that one can touch, taste, hear, see, or smell to prove God's existence, like for example, reality.
At the end of the debate Con contends that Pro has committed a fallacy by defining God into existence. This is clearly not the case, as Pro has supported with citation and without refute that Christianity views God as the Truth. Con attempted to define God out of reality by contending that God is not actually held as the Truth, but is the intellectual idea of truth, so Pro had to explain that the Truth actually means what truly is, "I AM That I AM"
"They "prove" this by showing how a dictionary says it, and the Christian bible agrees with the dictionary."
-Con
Con actually concedes Pros demonstration, that the ultimate reality being God is consistent with the Christian Bible. Why Con? You could have argued the interpretation of the Bible, but chose not to. If God is the ultimate reality, and that exists, than God exists. That's what Pro has demonstrated is taught by christianity.
#4
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con explains that God existing would be "a posteriori" proof-requiring as opposed to an a priori given, especially if we are to ascertain it to be the Christian one as opposed to that of other religions.
The fascinating part of this, to me, is that Pro doesn't say God is a priori, he actually amps it up further back the other way by saying God is not even a 'given/assumed truth that must be' but is in actual fact the supreme essence of truth in itself or something along that line.
Con completely decimates Pro in Round 4 but had already been successfully building up this case and chipping away at Pro's case to that point such that I feel it wasn't bad conduct or poorly times new-point-raising time to finish Pro off once and for all. Con wins by the following:
"Truth isn't a thing. It is an intellectual idea. If this world has a creator, that creator can only be a thing, as how could an intellectual idea create anything? Only an entity has the ability to affect the physical world, therefore if this god exists, and it is indeed the creator of all things, or even the creator of just one thing, then it is an entity, and an entity is not an intellectual idea, therefore an entity is not "truth." It really doesn't matter how many books define an entity as "truth," an entity's being is incompatible with the idea of what truth is.
I conclude that unless my opponent can either prove that an intellectual idea can create something/affect the physical world, or prove that an entity can be an intellectual idea, their entire premise is false, and they would have to prove that this god, indeed an entity, exists."
^^ Pro NEVER came close all debate to taking on Con's line of thinking or logical processing nor did Pro defend against this attack in his R4 (Pro goes second in this debate) or R5. Pro keeps explaining how the Bible describes God, the father, as the supreme truth and how the son is the 'word' and the ghost is... The GHOST OF TRUTH?? Did Truth die and become The Holy Ghost? I didn't grasp that one.
Anyway, Con wins due to the quoted section undeniably, in a direct and logically brutally-defensive manner lead Pro to fight against an impossible formation to fight against unless Pro were to explain that we are living in a simulated reality (like in the Matrix) whereby the 'real reality' is this God itself and absolutely nothing but God exists but to prove this is so demanding on Pro he'd lose anyway given how well Con was doing so Con won an unloseable debate and I feel bad for Pro but Pro really, really was underperforming even for being on the unwinnable site.
#3
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Officially, this was a debate to argue about the existence of [the Christian] God. However, if one looks closely at the majority of arguments offered by Con, as well as the debate description which was written by Con, it becomes obvious that the intended objective of this debate was something else entirely. Con alleges, both in the debate description as well as in his opening arguments, that Christians may ONLY use the Bible to "define" God. Aside from this, Con said nothing actually aimed at meeting his burden of proof to show that God doesn't exist. Con spent the entire debate scolding Pro for using a source other than the Bible as part of his argument.
If Con was a Christian debating a Catholic on the topic of Sola Scriptura, then this approach would have made a lot of sense. But when an Atheist is debating a Christian on the existence of [the Christian] God, it mainly just comes off as bad sportsmanship by attempting to block your opponent from using sources which you know in advance are likely to be called upon. Furthermore, it is also a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, by inferring that Christians are supposedly limited to using the Bible alone, when entire branches of the Christian faith (notably Catholics and Eastern Orthodox) specifically follow a doctrine which allows them to draw upon non-Biblical sources to construct their theology. As such, this mainly comes off as an attempt to hamstring his opponent without offering any actual argument of his own.
Regardless of the problems with this approach, Con sticks to it rigidly throughout the entire debate. In his opening arguments he even claims that the Bible doesn't provide a definition for God. Although this claim could probably be debated in an of itself, the fact that Con brings it up points out another contradictory way in which his strategy is poor sportsmanship; He is trying to limit his opponent to using a single source which he claims doesn't even define the topic of the debate!
While Con makes it obvious how hard he worked to prevent his opponent from using multiple sources, this expended effort seemed to distract him from remembering (or gave him an excuse to ignore) his own requirement to present an argument for why God doesn't exist. As such, he never presented any argument against the existence of God, even wasting an entire round of the debate citing a dictionary definition of a Leprechaun as part of his attempt to deny his opponent access to sources outside the Bible.
Conversely, Pro stuck to his own guns and cited from both the Bible and a dictionary definition of God, which identifies God as "the ultimate reality." Pro draws a connection between the Biblical scriptures which describe God as truth and the dictionary definition, pointing out that they do not contradict each other, but actually support each other. Pro therefore argues that God is truth itself.
I'll agree with some of the critics that this is not a terribly strong argument when presented alone. If I were participating in this debate, I would only use this as a minor argument used to buttress a series of other stronger arguments, if I used it at all. However, it still remains true that it IS an argument, even if a weak one. And Con never provided an effective rebuttal of this argument, other than to continuously complain that his opponent can't use the dictionary through the aforementioned 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.
In summary, Pro edged out a narrow victory on this one in my eyes. Pro presented one weak argument. Con only attempted to make a rebuttal of this argument by (fallaciously) claiming that his opponent shouldn't be allowed to make it. But Con was so busy railing against Pro's argument, that he failed to present any argument of his own. In a contest between a weak argument and no argument, the weak argument still wins.
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
con uses the bible to define god in round one as spirit, light love etc.. This is not ever offerred a rebuttal, and explained that proof must come from empirical evidence. pro never refutes this or offers empirical evidence. Pro offers another definition of God "The Truth", but If God is merely the truth than he doesn't exist at all. It would be like me saying God is a shoe and then asking somebody if they are trying to deny my shoe exists. It's dumb and given that con's definition of God is never refuted I can't just accept pro's definition. If I did blindly accept con's definition he would still need to prove ultimate truth has consciousness and that it actually exists. Con pretty much points out these same problems. Honestly much of pro's arguments sounded like the reamblings of somebody with schitzophrenia
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Arguments: When reading this, I had the same problem as con, I found it very difficult to really disentangle the specifics of pros actual argument due to pros rambling and at times somewhat incoherent style.
At its core, pro appears to be arguing that God is defined as the ultimate truth, as the ultimate truth is defined as existence (or defined in terms of existence), and so God must exist. This appears on its face to be an incredibly poor argument, akin to “defining God unto existence”. The majority of his argument in all rounds is either this contention, or trying to use Biblical quotes to support this contention.
I don’t think either pro or con contest these definitions inherently, but as con points out in round 3, 4 and 5, just because Christianity and pro and humans have decided to define God in this way doesn’t mean he necessarily exists. It simply proves that Pro is capable of defining God in such a way that the definition implies he exists.
In other words, rephrasing Cons rebuttal in rounds 3/4/5, it is possible to define ANYTHING in a way that the definition implies it exists, but that doesn’t itself show that the thing exists. Cons patient explanation of that in his final three rounds pretty succinctly summarized this. I don’t really think pro got a decent handle on what con was actually arguing: as his rebuttal mainly consisted of reiterating his initial claim.Cons leprechaun argument was a good example of what pro was doing in general, but I felt it much weaker than it could have been - as it doesn’t directly compare the definition as truth.
Despite pro saying several that he has “demonstrated” that God is “The Ultimate Reality” the major central premise of pros argument - what he has mainly done, is gone to great lengths to show people
Define God in a particular way - that he exists is comprehensively unproven and unsupported by anything Pro said - and indeed it appeared in pros rebuttal in round 4, that he didn’t fully grasp the distinction between defining something as existing, and it existing as con was pointing out.
Cons rebuttal, while short, was devastatingly effective, because he shines a bright light on the underlying fallacy that Pro is making throughout.
As a result, con exposes that pros position is vacuous and unsupported very effectively.
Conduct: tied - but we warned with statements like this: “if Instigator continues to use a straw man, false god, or lying vanity in the place of The God of Christianity, which is THE TRUTH, he will be guilty of the fallacy of INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE(2) and there is no argument I could possibly make that would be sufficient enough for instigator to accept his argument as being invalid.” Flowery insults are still insults don’t call your opponent a liar, or ignorant out of no-where. If this was any worse, or I found another example elsewhere in your argument, I would have awarded conduct to con.
Spelling and grammar. Pro was rambling and incoherent throughout this entire debate. It was a challenge to read through everything he said, and an even greater challenge to understand it. Pros style, grammar and structure was at times nonsensical with Statements such as:
“In fact, nothing about Christianity will even make sense without this understanding. Of what profit is it to strive for dispassion and the conquering of the lusts of mind in flesh? Why not just live a life of bestial hedonism? Because if you love THE TRUTH, living for the sake of vain indulgence is in opposition to this as it makes you blind to reality.”
“So if The Most Perfect Image of God is Truth, and with The Spirit of Truth we know God through this Image, what does that mean? It means that God is THE TRUTH AS IT TRULY IS, and this is expressed through the doctrine of The Trinity.”
These make next to no sense in the context of the debate, they are cluttered and unclear and were not isolated cases: with the majority of statements made by pro adding up to make it feel like most of pros content is indecipherable word salad.
Pro’s continual and zealous over capitalization of literally every phrase he decides to attribute to God (see the second quotes comment), combined with his frequent and repeated use of different terms to apply to God that he decides to capitalize were so egregious that it almost made his entire argument unreadable.
Sources: tied. This debate was more logical than factual. Scriptural sources would count if a matter of scripture was in contention, or had supported a specific factual claim (such as x happened), but as the definitions themselves were mostly undisputed in this way, the sources presented had little
Material value to the debate.
Con could have won with the same argument on sources, if he had reinforced his main arguments, with paraphrased quotes or sources (such as a critique of this ontological argument), but as he didn’t, neither sides argument was implicitly bolstered by sources.
Cue Angry PMs...