"You made a correlation between God and witchdoctors, both here and in the debate, which I showed was not sound because the analogy or similarity has minimal comparison in regards to evidence"
Like I said, the correlation was about 1) who bears the burden and 2) does utilizing the lack of an alternative and utilising the lack of a sound option is erroneous. Adding evidence would, in my analogy, be akin to the witch producing evidence. If that is done, it should be considered. However, my point is that saying "there's no other sound option" is a terrible argument.
"Your moral values lack what is necessary to justify your position, whereas my position had what is required"
Again, there is no such thing as an atheistic morality.
"Hitler preferred to kill Jews. How was that right? Why should I believe what you say as good is good? "
Because Hitler's actions did not conform to the accepted definition of what morality and good is.
The analogy which I proposed in no way regards the veracity of Christinaty - it merely attempts to show who bears the burden. Would you agree that, in the analogy I provided, the witches “proof” for their cure is not satisfactory? Do you agree that proposing an alternative and utilising the lack of a sound option is erroneous?
The element which rationalises my morals are epistemologically unjustified presuppositions. There must reach a point in which I make an axiomatic claim which tautologically cannot be justified. The same applies for you, merely, your axiom is, I presume, that God is the maxim which is good.
Again I must reiterate, the debate about morals is a different debate (which we can have). This debate regards Theism v. Atheism. There is no such thing as an atheistic moral view just as how there is not an a-witchest view on morality.
Haven't been reading but I'll briefly chime in. Imagine that we are in 2020, where COVID is in its full swing. No one has a cure to the virus. Now, suppose that a witch doctor with her fishbone suggests that she has a cure to the virus. Of course, with such a preposterous claim, evidence ought to be introduced. But then, the witch doctor states "you have no sound alternative, therefore, my proposition is sound". My stance is that proposing an alternative and utilizing the lack of a sound option is erroneous. It doesn't matter that there is no cure for Covid - however, when one proposes that they have a cure (just like how you propose the existence of God), you bear the burden of justifying such claim.
Tejretics, I recall you saying a while back that you were interested in voting on high level debates - perhaps this will interest? Ram, ur a trusty, unbiased voter so maybe this will also interest you?
Also I don't think Aquinas rejected the Kalam - 3 of his 5 proofs operate on the same grounds, that is, they postulated the impossibility of an actually infinite past and invoked a God to terminate the regress. Though Aquinas would not have known about the Kalam, I believe he would have approved of it.
The short description of this debate is ".......... - agreeable to or in accord with reason; logical.". This is a typo, the short description is just supposed to be "..........", could you change this? I'm sure PGA2.0 won't have any issues with this.
Quirky vote, but according to the Dart voting policy, "The disrespect of even a single forfeiture necessitates this penalty (conduct point) unless there is reason to withhold it. Repeated forfeitures are grounds for casting conduct only votes without any consideration to arguments (continued in Forfeitures)". I know you don't like me but come on now this is petty - no need to hand your "dirty laundry" in the public.
"You will note, in passing, that the vote gave me points. Don't know what "no points" you're talking about."
On this cite, if someone does not distribute all points to a contestant in a particular category, this is known as the voter not giving points to either side. It's slang, yes you got points, but they were neutrally distributed so they are equivalent to nothing.
"That is not the basis of my report"
Feel free to @ ram and tell him where he went wrong then.
"if that is how you want to satisfy yourself, I guess it's better than premature efactulation."
I do know how to win gracefully, I just find it a tad bit disrespectful to report a vote which was cast by a reputable voter who clearly put time into the decision on the basis that it does not award you points.
"You made a correlation between God and witchdoctors, both here and in the debate, which I showed was not sound because the analogy or similarity has minimal comparison in regards to evidence"
Like I said, the correlation was about 1) who bears the burden and 2) does utilizing the lack of an alternative and utilising the lack of a sound option is erroneous. Adding evidence would, in my analogy, be akin to the witch producing evidence. If that is done, it should be considered. However, my point is that saying "there's no other sound option" is a terrible argument.
"Your moral values lack what is necessary to justify your position, whereas my position had what is required"
Again, there is no such thing as an atheistic morality.
"Hitler preferred to kill Jews. How was that right? Why should I believe what you say as good is good? "
Because Hitler's actions did not conform to the accepted definition of what morality and good is.
The analogy which I proposed in no way regards the veracity of Christinaty - it merely attempts to show who bears the burden. Would you agree that, in the analogy I provided, the witches “proof” for their cure is not satisfactory? Do you agree that proposing an alternative and utilising the lack of a sound option is erroneous?
The element which rationalises my morals are epistemologically unjustified presuppositions. There must reach a point in which I make an axiomatic claim which tautologically cannot be justified. The same applies for you, merely, your axiom is, I presume, that God is the maxim which is good.
Again I must reiterate, the debate about morals is a different debate (which we can have). This debate regards Theism v. Atheism. There is no such thing as an atheistic moral view just as how there is not an a-witchest view on morality.
Haven't been reading but I'll briefly chime in. Imagine that we are in 2020, where COVID is in its full swing. No one has a cure to the virus. Now, suppose that a witch doctor with her fishbone suggests that she has a cure to the virus. Of course, with such a preposterous claim, evidence ought to be introduced. But then, the witch doctor states "you have no sound alternative, therefore, my proposition is sound". My stance is that proposing an alternative and utilizing the lack of a sound option is erroneous. It doesn't matter that there is no cure for Covid - however, when one proposes that they have a cure (just like how you propose the existence of God), you bear the burden of justifying such claim.
Thanks for the feedback!
would be a pity to have this debate go into a no vote tie.
Thanks. I usually hate reporting votes because I think it's petty, but this was just too far below the bar for a debate of which substance.
Thanks. I usually hate reporting votes because I think it's petty, but this was just too far below the bar for a debate of which substance.
Tad bit brief for a debate of over a hundred and fifty thousand characters?
Tejretics, I recall you saying a while back that you were interested in voting on high level debates - perhaps this will interest? Ram, ur a trusty, unbiased voter so maybe this will also interest you?
what
this dude takes kritiking to a new level.
bc all of it will be nonconsensual.
Just realised you're Wylted and not a DrLebonski alt.
Want to debate that?
Why don't you two just debate - you've pretty much already had a miny one in the comment sections.
When the two best soccer players in physical education are put on opposite teams.
Thanks for the feedback! The three of you came in clutch.
Thanks for the help, I appreciate whatever you can do.
Thanks for the help, I appreciate whatever you can do.
Final bump
Plz vote
One week to go.
Also I don't think Aquinas rejected the Kalam - 3 of his 5 proofs operate on the same grounds, that is, they postulated the impossibility of an actually infinite past and invoked a God to terminate the regress. Though Aquinas would not have known about the Kalam, I believe he would have approved of it.
You are the one I called from DDO.
An athiest, a theist and an agnostic voter. Feel free.
The short description of this debate is ".......... - agreeable to or in accord with reason; logical.". This is a typo, the short description is just supposed to be "..........", could you change this? I'm sure PGA2.0 won't have any issues with this.
You got an argument ready?
In dont think you can Hyperlink in the comments, however you can provide just sources in any way you wish, without further annotation that is.
Just wondering - do you believe that homosexuality is immoral? That could be an interesting topic to debate.
Also, make the time for argument one week - I don't even come on here every day.
Change it to "People should convert to Christianity", and I'll accept.
3 days. This vote realistically shouldn't take more than 10 minutes to cast.
Plz don't forget to vote.
" Read the rest of my reply to you in PM. No need to share it"
Good thing about the PM is that you can just ignore me without shame. Out here in the public, we both know your claims do not hold.
Quirky vote, but according to the Dart voting policy, "The disrespect of even a single forfeiture necessitates this penalty (conduct point) unless there is reason to withhold it. Repeated forfeitures are grounds for casting conduct only votes without any consideration to arguments (continued in Forfeitures)". I know you don't like me but come on now this is petty - no need to hand your "dirty laundry" in the public.
Plz don't forget to vote.
"You will note, in passing, that the vote gave me points. Don't know what "no points" you're talking about."
On this cite, if someone does not distribute all points to a contestant in a particular category, this is known as the voter not giving points to either side. It's slang, yes you got points, but they were neutrally distributed so they are equivalent to nothing.
"That is not the basis of my report"
Feel free to @ ram and tell him where he went wrong then.
"if that is how you want to satisfy yourself, I guess it's better than premature efactulation."
k faux.
I do know how to win gracefully, I just find it a tad bit disrespectful to report a vote which was cast by a reputable voter who clearly put time into the decision on the basis that it does not award you points.
You don't have to report every vote that is against you.
Pinging more people. Feel free to vote.
Come on, just between the two of us :)
I don't know if anyone's told you but your syntax and formatting are practically identical to Fauxlaw.
Cheers. Thanks for the time.
One week. Come on now.
Seriously, we're gonna need some votes.
*knew
Two weeks to vote, come on now don't be shy.
The two of you are on opposite sides of a debate largely revolving around the KCA. Perhaps you would be interested in voting?
Also, anyone else who wants to vote, please feel free.
Thanks for a good debate, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Sorry if I sounded blunt, that's just my syntax.
Yours.