Instigator / Pro
11
1402
rating
44
debates
40.91%
won
Topic
#705

No Gods Exist

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Dustandashes
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1495
rating
9
debates
44.44%
won
Description

Round 1: Opening argument.
Round 2: Rebuttals of Openings.
Round 3: Rejoinder of Rebuttals.
Round 4: Interrogation Questions
Round 5: Answering Interrogation Questions and Closing Arguments.

-->
@b9_ntt

Solid vote

-->
@Melcharaz

But you and I both know that there is no evidence for what you're claiming. If so, could you give me a citation?

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

Spirits when allowed to manifest are spotted quite often! angels, ghosts, demons. All manifestation of spirits. Also, don't dare to demean something spiritual with emotion, too many do that and fall into deception as it is.

-->
@Melcharaz

Unless you count a pep rally , lol

-->
@Melcharaz

Sure, does spirit have a definition? cause none of those have ever been spotted either.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

I did define him. He is a spirit. Not a person.

-->
@Melcharaz

Well if you have understanding and he revealed himself to you, then why can't you define him? Since you've met God personally, you should at least know something about him. How tall is he? What color is his Hair? Does he even look human? Is he a blob? Does he speak English?

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

I only claim understanding because he revealed himself to me.

-->
@Melcharaz

How can you claim something that you can't define?

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

I said God is beyond physics. How can i define beyond wrick? many ways. But one that you won't ever understand is the spiritual application which is most relevant to defining God's nature. Spirit. The bible does not claim omni benevolence, i challenge anyone to show me otherwise. It only says that God is love, it never says he is nothing but love or that he is only capable of love. Love is something we associate and understand through first emotional concept and for christians spiritual understanding. The rock paradox does not show omnipotence as impossible, it only shows the foolishness of mankind trying to apply his weakness to God himself. If the rock and God are one, we would never know it as he defined in spiritual understanding. I have no need to justify physics with God as God expresses himself through physics and reality as we percieve it. When you look at earth, you not only see God's work, you see God expressed, aside from his spirit but revealed through intention and will.

-->
@Dustandashes

same to you.

-->
@Melcharaz

You realize the rock paradox shows why omnipotence is impossible right? The bible claims omnibenevolence. Do you deny it? You say it's beyond physics, but you're not justifying that. If you can't even give me the mechanics of it without arriving at a contradiction, then why should I believe that claim?

You misunderstand the relationship between God and physics. God expresses himself in the universe as the law of physics, yet his authority and power is beyond it.

There is no place we can claim God as omni benevolence, that would mean he has no aspect of justice.

something intresting that people haven't considered in asking "can God create a rock too big." where would he get it from? If he fills all time and space he would have to find a rock outside of creation for it to be to big for him to lift, if however in this universe as we know it where God fills "the heavens and the heaven of heavens" then God would literally make a rock from himself and lift it. Therefore it is impossible for God to lift a rock bigger/heavier/denser than himself. or even create one for that matter, for God is infinite and would have to make an infinite rock, but the rock would stop becoming infinite before God did.

-->
@Melcharaz

I noticed you left out omnibenevolence.

So in order to say god is exempt from physics we need a justification.

What would your justification be.

If it's necessity, then I'll need you to prove the impossibility of the non existence of god.

If it's god's nature, I'll need evidence of that nature, then I'll need impossibility of these not being his nature.

etc. etc. Basically, I need the rock bottom base of the claim and then proof by contradiction.

i have some thoughts on your showing of an omni God.

Omnipotence means all-powerful. Monotheistic theologians regard God as having supreme power. This means God can do what he wants. It means he is not subject to physical limitations like man is. Being omnipotent, God has power over wind, water, gravity, physics, etc. God's power is infinite, or limitless.
Omniscience means all-knowing. God is all all-knowing in the sense that he is aware of the past, present, and future. Nothing takes him by surprise. His knowledge is total. He knows all that there is to know and all that can be known.
Omnipresence means all-present. This term means that God is capable of being everywhere at the same time. It means his divine presence encompasses the whole of the universe. There is no location where he does not inhabit. This should not be confused with pantheism, which suggests that God is synonymous with the universe itself; instead, omnipresence indicates that God is distinct from the universe, but inhabits the entirety of it. He is everywhere at once.

therefore the definition and examples you gave of omni God is incorrect.

Dustandashes you don't understand what it means when the bible says "god cannot lie" It doesn't mean he cannot see and acknowledge what is false, it simply mean that when he says or declares something, it becomes what he says/declares therefore he cannot lie. how can i assert this? the book of ezekiel when god says “What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?” Right there, God is acknowledging something that is false. and immediately he says. "As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel."

also... wouldn't a square triangle be a pyramid? if that's the case God made plenty of those.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

Thank you very much for your kind words. I really enjoy debating you, I look forward to many more

-->
@Dustandashes

I liked your answers for the most part. I'm glad you didn't skip out on questions 8-10 because I usually get dodges on those. kudos for being an honest intellectual. Good debate. You're always welcome at my floor.

-->
@b9_ntt

Thank you!!

-->
@Speedrace

Thank you!!

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
@Dustandashes

You guys really know how to make an entertaining debate, nice

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
@Dustandashes

Thanks to both of you for finishing this debate. It will be a pleasure to vote on a God debate that does not end in a forfeiture.

-->
@Dustandashes

Btw, you made me want coffee so now you're gonna have to wait the extra ten minutes for me to hit the store on the way home, lol.

-->
@Dustandashes

I like your intro on that Statement. I'll make my reply my first priority right after I drop my kid off at school.

-->
@Dustandashes

I had some typos in my questions, sorry about that.

Questions 3 is suppose to read "physically impossible" not "possible"

-->
@Dustandashes

Make sure you read the end of my R4 before you reply. I wrote guidelines about the best way to set up the Interrogation round.

-->
@Dustandashes

Don't sweat the format, We're having fun and being polite. I used to mess up formatted debates all the time because I was used to youtube comment battle before this.

The only real new thing I added was the interrogation round. They do it in live debates and I thought it might be fun because I feel like questioning during the rebuttals gets lost in the folds and voters would have more fun reading the debate if it isn't just 5 rounds of quoting. lol.

-->
@Speedrace

Thank you speedrace, my opponent is quite formidable indeed. I don't often hear new arguments against God's existence and this one was pretty new to me. Thank you for reading

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
@Dustandashes

Lol both of you are hilarious and really good debaters and I love it

-->
@Melcharaz

Are you saying that since God prescribes his own rules to himself that he could make square triangles if he didn't restrict himself?

-->
@Melcharaz

Sure, now please explain that in a way that is logically coherent. I'm not poking fun at you. I'm dead serious.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

The only rules that could apply to it are the ones it applies to its self through decree.

-->
@K_Michael

No, I think you're right.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

The example is Elijah, actually. Unless you're referring to Moses and the Plagues.

-->
@K_Michael

It would count if we could repeat them scientifically.

For instance, there's a Bible verse where two people are perform some ritual I believe involving animal sacrifices.

Jesus may have been involved, but I think it was Old Testament.

Anyway, One priest did their ritual and it failed and then the one with God on their side did their own ritual and it worked. I think it was Moses actually.

Now if we could reproduce that ritual, it would give us a precedent that "something is making this happen" and we could cite such examples as being contrary to physics and we could start with the hypothesis that "this may be god" and then take it to it's conclusion to see if the model fits.

At least in this scenario, I would be willing entertain the idea of giving god exceptions.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

"The problem with The God proposition is that the claim itself doesn't give us any logical reason to believe that God is exceptional in terms of physics. So unless we can make an observation that leads us to that conclusion, then it's not justified to make a special exception."
I suppose citing biblically recorded miracles doesn't count?

-->
@K_Michael

Nice to see you on here Buddy!!.

Anyway.

There's a concept in logic called coherence. The idea is that if you have logical idea X, that it must be able to cohere to the rest of your worldview Y. So while Quantum mechanics does introduce it's own set of strange rules, the fact is that all of these rules cohere with the model for physics.

It's like saying that a building is not following the same rules as a person in physics. While the building might react differently to certain physical stimuli, it's only because the building has different variables that the human does. If the human had similar size and composition, then the human would have more physics in common with the building.

Similarly, quantum particles react the way they do because of their size which changes which forces they can interact with and how those force impact them. So the reason that particles don't respond the same to Newtonian physics is because some of the forces in that model are too big to react with the particle so we have a logical reason for the difference of interaction.

The problem with The God proposition is that the claim itself doesn't give us any logical reason to believe that god is exceptional in terms of physics. So unless we can make an observation that leads us to that conclusion, then it's not justified to make a special exception.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

"A maximally powerful God still must obey the laws of physics in order to interact with it."
I don't see why. Quantum particles are a relatively new discovery in science, but it's still clear that they have their own physics. If there are quantum physics for sub-microscopic particles, why can't there be "God physics" for God? And don't say that it's because otherwise, God couldn't interact with the Newtonian levels of physics. Quantum particles are apparently the literal basis for Newtonian matter, so they're directly interacting despite a whole different set of rules.

-->
@Melcharaz

Okay well what do you mean by "law unto itself"

Could I get an example of what this would be and how it would be less observable than gravity?

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

No, because gravity is understood through observation.

-->
@Dustandashes

I said "move into interrogations" at the end of R2, but I actually meant "Rejoinders"

-->
@Melcharaz

Wouldn't that be the same as calling god Gravity and the like?

you should make it more intresting, omni Gods don't have to obey any laws but are a law unto themselves.

-->
@Dustandashes

Something new I'm trying out.

-->
@Dustandashes

Round 1: Just provide your argument against My Claim or for your opposite Claim
Round 2: You rebuttal my arguments from round 1.
Round 3: You Rebuttal my Rebuttal from round 2
Round 4: We each Send each other a list of questions we want answered about our opponent's position.
Round 5: We each Quote and Answer the questions and then make closing statements.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

Ok, so, if you could just give me a brief run down on the debate format, maybe explain what exactly you want in each round

Ten thousand characters? I'm in trouble

-->
@David

I got you next time. ;)

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

I'd be willing to take this as a redo our last debate if you don't mind.