-->
@Athias
Answer me this question: Do fairies exist in the real, physical universe we inhabit?
If you want to debate me on this specific premise (since you kinda already are), then I’ll happily oblige.This is the argument you have a burden to substantiate:...there is no evidence (outside of holy texts) of the existence of their particular god.
Yes.Answer me this question: Do fairies exist in the real, physical universe we inhabit?
Theists are resorting to deistic arguments in the absence of theistic ones (as evidenced by this thread).
No, I'd rather discuss the premise in the forums rather than subject it to vote.If you want to debate me on this specific premise (since you kinda already are), then I’ll happily oblige.
I was referring to 3RUTAL’s first post of this thread, and the argument made in it.
This is the argument you have a burden to substantiate:The reason theists use deist arguments is because there is no evidence (outside of holy texts) of the existence of their particular god.
What proof? You have not substantiated your premises. There has yet to be any demonstration of evidence by this thread. 3RU7AL's videos at best are subject to interpretation, and the only contribution you've made to the discussion is to assert that Theists use deistic arguments because evidence for their "particular God," outside of holy texts, does not exist. Not to mention, the argument you've used to construct the modus tollens is still an argument from ignorance because you're still placing the referendum on the Theistic argument to inform your assertion. This is the argument you have a burden to substantiate:
The reason I want this in a debate instead of in a forum setting is because, given the complexity of the argument, it would require a separate debate to prove/satisfy.
Pick a specific god and I will explain exactly why it cannot possibly exist due to logically contradictory descriptions.
In the absence of a logically coherent description, I reject the validity of all gods (except SPINOZA'S GOD OF COURSE!!!).
I only accept the existence of phenomena that are scientifically quantifiable and or logically necessary (based on the definition of "existence" also known as REAL-TRUE-FACTS).
You are making an "argument from ignorance" basically saying that because (not-rigorously-defined) fairies and gods can't be disproven (in your opinion) that they cannot be said to "not-exist" (you're also ignoring the definition of "exist").
You don't need a holy text to know God exists. The Ultimate Reality by necessity must exist.
I have to agree with Athias on this one. Shifting the BoP exclusively to your opponent is also a logical fallacy.If you go to the debate section and look at all the debates (for whatever reason), you will notice that in some debates, the Instigator waives the first round. The reason people do this is because it would be extremely impractical to BoP a negative claim first round. So in a debate, what I did would be considered valid.
We already agree that god = NOUMENON.
You've stated before that holy-text is not considered dogma by the Eastern Orthodox Church, so you've kinda pulled the rug out from underneath yourself there.
We already agree that god = NOUMENON.No, I do not agree. This is bad language. It implies that God is a mental construct, not The Ultimate Reality.
You've stated before that holy-text is not considered dogma by the Eastern Orthodox Church, so you've kinda pulled the rug out from underneath yourself there.I am certain this is a misunderstanding on your part, because we have scripture and we take it very seriously.
I argued that the existence of anything is not contingent on a particular description,
Your descriptions of god are indistinguishable from NOUMENON
Do you believe the holy-scripture as-written is 100% infallible?
Answer me this question: Do fairies exist in the real, physical universe we inhabit?Yes.
There can be no conversation if you refuse to discuss the specific meaning of specific words.
There can be no conversation if you refuse to describe the thing you assert "exists".
Scritino-waves exist. I know Scritino-waves exist because their existence is not contingent on a description.
(B) what do you mean by "god" and what do you mean by "exist"?
(A) i refuse to describe gods and i also refuse to define existence.
(B) so you've basically said, "all potatoes exist".
Scritino-waves exist. I know Scritino-waves exist because their existence is not contingent on a description.Okay.
So God exists?God exists in exactly the same way that Scritino-waves exist.
God exists in exactly the same way that Scritino-waves exist.So God exists?
Deism means the opposite of atheism, because it admits a deity.
Belief in God does effect how some people behave, but to others it may not.
That doesn't make deism functionally the same as atheism. They are opposites.
Deism simply means belief that a deity exists. Of course this wouldn't inform you.
[Even (IFF)] Atheism does not believe that a Deity exists. Of course this wouldn't inform you.
Belief in the existence of a deity is not the same as devotion or faith toward a deity.
It takes more than intellectual assent for the belief to do anything. Our scriptures say that even the demons believe, but thid does not stop them from being demonic. There are many so called believers in God, even ones that claim to worship God that behave in a way indistinguishable from those who are pagans or even deny God outright.
Theism and Deism mean the same thing belief in a god/gods/deity/deities/God. Even the etymology of these words demonstrate this as deus and theos both mean the same thing.What is the difference?
Deus is the Latin equivilent of the Greek word "Theos". They even sound pretty similar!