Ok, so we'll operate on the idea that god can violate logic, great this makes sense.
Now you say God can be limited and still be omnipotent because he can violate logic, so then I would point out at the moment that god violates logic he no longer has the power to infinitely remain logical.
Therefore when he violates logic he relinquishes a power he supposedly has, the power to infinitely remain logical.
Why does god not have the power to infinitely remain logical?
"Why should it negate omnipotence when you have argued that God is not limited by logic?"
The phrase "God not being able to" should never be uttered, because god is supposed to "be able to do anything." There are no qualifiers like "be able to do anything "within reason" or "within his nature" because that's necessarily limiting an unlimited.
Now, please look, this is the contradiction that I tried to highlight in the omnipotence paradox and you textbook use it right here.
"God can be limited and still omnipotent."
No, he cannot.
If he can violate logic, then that makes perfect sense, that would speak to his omnipotence, remember, I was not the debater that brought up that god cannot violate logic, Pro did.
"To Raltar, and myself, there is genuinely a direct link between what my source said and what I was getting at."
This is EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID:
"Just observe the following video in the following link: https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/index.html You will see that 'Eastern Hemisphere' and 'Western Hemisphere' are purely invented by us, humans, as a social construct whereas Northern and Southern hemisphere are arguably undeniable so long as the Earth is as presented to us by NASA."
You get source points for this video because "when Con states that the Eastern and Western hemispheres are social constructs, ***he both links to and quotes*** from a source which says ****exactly that*
This isn't misinterpreting.
This is just someone trying to vote your side arbitrarily and making up points where there aren't any.
I repeat the vote:
"when Con states that the Eastern and Western hemispheres are social constructs, ***he both links to and quotes*** from a source which says ****exactly that***."
The link you just gave, which isn't the one you gave for "social constructs" in the debate, only mentions axis and never mentions anything socially constructed or the word hemisphere.
No I'm serious.
If he gave you source points for linking to something that said EXACTLY "the Eastern and Western hemispheres are social constructs" and your link did none of the sort, then why can't you own that and have him remove the vote.
I want you to know that Raltar lied and I have the proof, please be honest about it and ask him to not vote.
Your boy Raltar said:
"For example, when Con states that the Eastern and Western hemispheres are social constructs, he both links to and quotes from a source which says *exactly that*."
Are you aware of the source you provided for that?
Do you wanna make a bet if it mentions social constructs?
I do.
Here's the link that says "exactly" what you said about social constructs.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/index.html
Con:
"All that aside, Pro will find that 'actually' the sun sets on the west just as much as it rises on it and sets in the east just as much as rises on it."
Vote:
"he seems to be inferring that the Sun sets in the "west" in the Western hemisphere because you would be facing in the direction of the Eastern hemisphere when watching it set, and the other way around for the Eastern hemisphere."
What Pro actually said:
"The sun appears above the horizon in the west because observers, who live in Los Angeles, live in the west and experience sunrises everyday."
"The sun appears to move toward and below the horizon in the east because observers, who live in Tokyo, live in the east and experience sunsets everyday."
Now, I couldn't figure where the voter had gotten this idea of *facing* the sun, as I NEVER used that at all in my argument, and I found it.
Con, NOT Pro had said R2:
"Suppose you are facing east - the planet carries you eastward as it turns, so whatever lies beyond that eastern horizon eventually comes up over the horizon and you see it!"
Then I decided to look in the comments, and there it was, biased voter spouting HIS reasoning to not vote arguments in the debate ,not based on the performance of the debater.
Voter in comments after vote:
"I reasoned that if I were standing on the beach in Los Angles and looking at the sunset, *I would be physically facing*the direction west, but would also be looking across the sea to where the Eastern hemisphere."
Oh this is not directed at anyone.
But let's examine one of the votes and the debate and see if they match up.
Vote:
"Pro built a very brief argument that the rising and setting of the sun has a different perspective depending on if one is located in the Eastern or Western Hemisphere. "
What Pro actually said:
"The people who live in California, Californians, witness and observe sunrises.'
"The people who live in Tokyo, Tokyoites, witness and observe sunsets."
No perspective was ever mentioned by either debater ever.
"To an observer" is a reference to the definition the voter was supposed to understand and gauge the debate with.
"God isn't subordinate to logic. That is just a no meaning phrase you're throwing around."
Did you read what Pro wrote in the debate, or did you just vote blindly?
He said in the debate god CANNOT GO AGAINST LOGIC.
Respond to the debate content, not your thoughts.
"Magic, either God cannot do the illogical"
Then you vote Con, because that's something in the set of powers UNLIMITED IN NUMBER, QUANTITY, and EXTENT that he doesn't have.
Think about it.
If I have the power to violate logic, and god doesn't, then I necessarily CAN DO THINGS THAT GOD CANNOT.
The definitions clearly read "able to do all things"
Do you think being subordinate to logic, as Pro CONCEDED in the debate, is a power unlimited in terms of extent?
Do you think listing a bunch of things that god cannot do shows unlimited powers?
Please answer these.
You should really explain why you're ignoring Con's concession, twice done in the debate, and you should really explain all of the points that impact the resolution per the rules of the debate.
Hey everyone including moderators, this is the private message I sent Raltar that made him block me:
"I don't necessarily want you to change your vote, but we need to talk about some of your reasoning for your vote, and I'll give you the option to talk about it here or in the comments."
That's all I said.
Once Raltar became public about blocking me, our private conversation became public, and now we can all see why he is actually running away...he knows his vote is flawed.
Ok, well let it be known that all I did was ask to talk to Raltar about something in his vote and he is choosing to run away.
I'm asking Raltar nicely to please explain why he doesn't think coordinate sourcing was appropriate, after all he gave Con points because "As such, his sources clearly served the purpose of adding veracity to his argument, which cannot be said of the sources provided by Pro."
Why does the time of the sunset not prove that Japan experiences sunsets and why do coordinates with the western denotation not support my point according to Raltar's vote?
I'm asking nicely, so if you run from this, you're admitting dishonesty.
Moderators, take note.
Hey did you mention Pro dropping that creation is temporal and that he can't discern between a creator and the created product without time?
No?
Did you ignore the drops of what he had to affirm?
Yes?
Man up and remove that obviously biased, dishonest vote.
The source points are garbage too.
" As such, his sources clearly served the purpose of adding veracity to his argument, which cannot be said of the sources provided by Pro."
Did you address my sources for coordinates on the eastern and western hemispheres indicating they were west and east?
You can't see how showing that the sunset occurred via the time it occurred is bolstering the point that in that location the sunset occurs?
How else would I have sourced a sunset in Japan?
Also, in your reason for voting, you lied about my argument.
"If I'm understanding his obscure argument correctly, he seems to be inferring that the Sun sets in the "west" in the Western hemisphere because you would be facing in the direction of the Eastern hemisphere when watching it set, and the other way around for the Eastern hemisphere."
Dude, this isn't even close.
I never said anything about facing any horizons, you made that crap up.
All i said was that people IN THE EAST observe sunsets and people IN THE WEST observe sunrises. It's really simple and you know that.
What did you think I meant by Tokyoites seeing sunsets?
I didn't mention which way anyone faces.
Why did you ignore the concession from Con?
Or at least why did you not address what he said as impactful?
"This is wrong. Based on this logic it would be morally permissible to kill those who are disabled or those who are "unfit.' The "undesirables" hurt the overall "homeostatic" nature of the rest of society."
Can you explain how the disabled are unfit?
Do you know what fitness is?
"That line of reason was pretty much responsible for eugenics and an attempt to create a ‘master race’ by killing those who are ‘unfit’"
Oh come on, I'm merely pointing out that higher order mammals have to ensure their society's sustained survival in order to ensure the adept individual's sustained survival.
Eugenics was based on racial disparities not homeostatic maintenance and sustainability of the immediate society.
"Kinda curious if you think smoking is immoral? It’s obvciously harmful to yourself and those around you."
When it begins harming "those around you," you may be leading away from the maintaining of the homeostasis of those around you.
Behavior toward yourself is not morality to me UNLESS this behavior impacts others.
How your actions affect others' homeostasis is morality to me.
"Also are you pro life? Taking your views to its logical conclusion it would appear that abortion would be immoral."
I'm pro choice in those cases where the woman would need to terminate the fetus in an attempt to preserve and maintain her homeostasis.
If someone who can consent wishes to sustain their homeostasis, they shall not be impeded.
Please stop claiming there's no evidence.
Understanding this is key.
Stop acting like you've refuted anything.
Stop acting like a gigantic pussy.
You can read, right?
In some cases survival may cause an individual to go against society, but for the most part, when considering that the sustained survival of the individual is contingent on the survival of the society, the most adapt individual is only benefited if they work to sustain the survival of the society.
Yeah, as a biology teacher I realized that one of the most universal things among us was homeostasis and our strive to maintain it. No culture, religion or worldview really ever changes that.
But thanks for the debate anyway, sorry for all of your mishaps.
God work.
Imagine you're Pro in a debate about whether or not humans can fly.
If you define flying as moving long distances in the air and we end up having a debate about whether or not humans can do this, it would be irrelevant for Con to point out that humans don't fly in the scientific sense, i.e. they don't manipulate air resistance with an appendage to travel distance through the air. Flying in an airplane, though satisfies the definition of flying and humans do that all of the time.
Now imagine that Con, in the humans flying debate, said that "Humans can fly in the conceptual sense, not the objective, scientific sense."
If you don't see this as a concession, you don't understand how to apply definitions to a debate.
By Con OVERTLY affirming the resolution, you must vote Pro here.
It's the same thing.
Stop.
I already addressed that social constructs or conceptual hemispheres are still DENOTED TO BE EASTERN AND WESTERN, scientific or not.
Raltar, please look at the AGREED TO DEFINITIONS of east and west.
As long as they are DENOTED to be eastern and western, conceptually or not, they satisfy east and west.
Con also conceded that people denote these areas to be eastern and western.
Raltar, DO ANY OF THE DEFINITIONS MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT SCIENTIFIC OR OBJECTIVE EAST AND WEST?
If not, you're being a dishonest voter by allowing him that point.
Please read the definitions if you want to be an effective voter.
"When I say that if you are on the Western Hemisphere, the sun both rises and sets for you everyday and that if you are on the Eastern Hemisphere, the sun does the same."
Um, he said that the sun rises in the west as much as it sets on it and it sets in the east as much as it rises on it.
This affirms the resolution, nearly word for word.
This site is a spillover site from DDO, on which I have the same name and a very extensive record.
Throughout my time on that debate site, which is nearly identical to this platform, I had so many dishonest voters vote me down, that I have to be very particular about everything in my debates. You can't count on mods to actually remove votes that are dishonest, so I put all of that in the rules and re-mentioned it to voters.
I mean, this debate has been conceded twice now by my opponent and I'll still have to battle off some dishonest voter.
Hahaha ethang5 submitted to me.
He has no answer to the flaws of his vote that will be removed anyway...
hahahahaha the troll is silenced by an argument he voted against, couldn't refute, yet voted that it was insufficient.
LOL
Stumped?
Yeah, that's the exact argument I made in the debate, and you claimed it was not good enough.
Come on.
What's your response to the questions:
1. Can god violate logic and infinitely remain logical?
2. Is god UNABLE to violate logic and able to do anything?
Answer and we'll talk about the score board.
Btw your vote was reported by Virt, not me, please answer those questions.
I made the same argument in the debate...guess you didn't read that either...figures.
Check and mate.
Ok, so we'll operate on the idea that god can violate logic, great this makes sense.
Now you say God can be limited and still be omnipotent because he can violate logic, so then I would point out at the moment that god violates logic he no longer has the power to infinitely remain logical.
Therefore when he violates logic he relinquishes a power he supposedly has, the power to infinitely remain logical.
Why does god not have the power to infinitely remain logical?
God cannot fly and birds can, birds have more power than god.
"Why should it negate omnipotence when you have argued that God is not limited by logic?"
The phrase "God not being able to" should never be uttered, because god is supposed to "be able to do anything." There are no qualifiers like "be able to do anything "within reason" or "within his nature" because that's necessarily limiting an unlimited.
Now, please look, this is the contradiction that I tried to highlight in the omnipotence paradox and you textbook use it right here.
"God can be limited and still omnipotent."
No, he cannot.
If he can violate logic, then that makes perfect sense, that would speak to his omnipotence, remember, I was not the debater that brought up that god cannot violate logic, Pro did.
Opps on you.
"And God not being able to"
Negates omnipotence.
That's what you can't see.
Actually, that was a great RFD, you really took time to analyze it all. nice work again.
Thanks for the thorough, well-explained honest vote.
"To Raltar, and myself, there is genuinely a direct link between what my source said and what I was getting at."
This is EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID:
"Just observe the following video in the following link: https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/index.html You will see that 'Eastern Hemisphere' and 'Western Hemisphere' are purely invented by us, humans, as a social construct whereas Northern and Southern hemisphere are arguably undeniable so long as the Earth is as presented to us by NASA."
You get source points for this video because "when Con states that the Eastern and Western hemispheres are social constructs, ***he both links to and quotes*** from a source which says ****exactly that*
This isn't misinterpreting.
This is just someone trying to vote your side arbitrarily and making up points where there aren't any.
I repeat the vote:
"when Con states that the Eastern and Western hemispheres are social constructs, ***he both links to and quotes*** from a source which says ****exactly that***."
The link you just gave, which isn't the one you gave for "social constructs" in the debate, only mentions axis and never mentions anything socially constructed or the word hemisphere.
Man up, sir.
No I'm serious.
If he gave you source points for linking to something that said EXACTLY "the Eastern and Western hemispheres are social constructs" and your link did none of the sort, then why can't you own that and have him remove the vote.
I want you to know that Raltar lied and I have the proof, please be honest about it and ask him to not vote.
Your boy Raltar said:
"For example, when Con states that the Eastern and Western hemispheres are social constructs, he both links to and quotes from a source which says *exactly that*."
Are you aware of the source you provided for that?
Do you wanna make a bet if it mentions social constructs?
I do.
Here's the link that says "exactly" what you said about social constructs.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/index.html
Man up and admit he's lying for you.
Also not mentioned in that vote, shockingly!
Con:
"All that aside, Pro will find that 'actually' the sun sets on the west just as much as it rises on it and sets in the east just as much as rises on it."
Con doubled down on this too.
Vote:
"he seems to be inferring that the Sun sets in the "west" in the Western hemisphere because you would be facing in the direction of the Eastern hemisphere when watching it set, and the other way around for the Eastern hemisphere."
What Pro actually said:
"The sun appears above the horizon in the west because observers, who live in Los Angeles, live in the west and experience sunrises everyday."
"The sun appears to move toward and below the horizon in the east because observers, who live in Tokyo, live in the east and experience sunsets everyday."
Now, I couldn't figure where the voter had gotten this idea of *facing* the sun, as I NEVER used that at all in my argument, and I found it.
Con, NOT Pro had said R2:
"Suppose you are facing east - the planet carries you eastward as it turns, so whatever lies beyond that eastern horizon eventually comes up over the horizon and you see it!"
Then I decided to look in the comments, and there it was, biased voter spouting HIS reasoning to not vote arguments in the debate ,not based on the performance of the debater.
Voter in comments after vote:
"I reasoned that if I were standing on the beach in Los Angles and looking at the sunset, *I would be physically facing*the direction west, but would also be looking across the sea to where the Eastern hemisphere."
Not Pro's args voter!
Oh this is not directed at anyone.
But let's examine one of the votes and the debate and see if they match up.
Vote:
"Pro built a very brief argument that the rising and setting of the sun has a different perspective depending on if one is located in the Eastern or Western Hemisphere. "
What Pro actually said:
"The people who live in California, Californians, witness and observe sunrises.'
"The people who live in Tokyo, Tokyoites, witness and observe sunsets."
No perspective was ever mentioned by either debater ever.
"To an observer" is a reference to the definition the voter was supposed to understand and gauge the debate with.
"God isn't subordinate to logic. That is just a no meaning phrase you're throwing around."
Did you read what Pro wrote in the debate, or did you just vote blindly?
He said in the debate god CANNOT GO AGAINST LOGIC.
Respond to the debate content, not your thoughts.
I'll agree not to talk to you, but I just want to know why showing coordinates are not proving the veracity of my claims.
That's all.
"Magic, either God cannot do the illogical"
Then you vote Con, because that's something in the set of powers UNLIMITED IN NUMBER, QUANTITY, and EXTENT that he doesn't have.
Think about it.
If I have the power to violate logic, and god doesn't, then I necessarily CAN DO THINGS THAT GOD CANNOT.
The definitions clearly read "able to do all things"
Do you think being subordinate to logic, as Pro CONCEDED in the debate, is a power unlimited in terms of extent?
Do you think listing a bunch of things that god cannot do shows unlimited powers?
Please answer these.
Outplayz, thank you for the honest vote, nicely done.
You should really explain why you're ignoring Con's concession, twice done in the debate, and you should really explain all of the points that impact the resolution per the rules of the debate.
Hey everyone including moderators, this is the private message I sent Raltar that made him block me:
"I don't necessarily want you to change your vote, but we need to talk about some of your reasoning for your vote, and I'll give you the option to talk about it here or in the comments."
That's all I said.
Once Raltar became public about blocking me, our private conversation became public, and now we can all see why he is actually running away...he knows his vote is flawed.
Ok, well let it be known that all I did was ask to talk to Raltar about something in his vote and he is choosing to run away.
I'm asking Raltar nicely to please explain why he doesn't think coordinate sourcing was appropriate, after all he gave Con points because "As such, his sources clearly served the purpose of adding veracity to his argument, which cannot be said of the sources provided by Pro."
Why does the time of the sunset not prove that Japan experiences sunsets and why do coordinates with the western denotation not support my point according to Raltar's vote?
I'm asking nicely, so if you run from this, you're admitting dishonesty.
Moderators, take note.
Thanks for the honesty man.
Hey did you mention Pro dropping that creation is temporal and that he can't discern between a creator and the created product without time?
No?
Did you ignore the drops of what he had to affirm?
Yes?
Man up and remove that obviously biased, dishonest vote.
The source points are garbage too.
You did well for your position, I must admit...applause.
"Rising and setting of the sun which requires consideration of hemisphere must be scientifically irrelevant."
Where in the definitions does it say that rising and setting are based on hemispheres?
If you cannot find it, you must change your reasoning.
" As such, his sources clearly served the purpose of adding veracity to his argument, which cannot be said of the sources provided by Pro."
Did you address my sources for coordinates on the eastern and western hemispheres indicating they were west and east?
You can't see how showing that the sunset occurred via the time it occurred is bolstering the point that in that location the sunset occurs?
How else would I have sourced a sunset in Japan?
Also, in your reason for voting, you lied about my argument.
"If I'm understanding his obscure argument correctly, he seems to be inferring that the Sun sets in the "west" in the Western hemisphere because you would be facing in the direction of the Eastern hemisphere when watching it set, and the other way around for the Eastern hemisphere."
Dude, this isn't even close.
I never said anything about facing any horizons, you made that crap up.
All i said was that people IN THE EAST observe sunsets and people IN THE WEST observe sunrises. It's really simple and you know that.
What did you think I meant by Tokyoites seeing sunsets?
I didn't mention which way anyone faces.
Why did you ignore the concession from Con?
Or at least why did you not address what he said as impactful?
"This is wrong. Based on this logic it would be morally permissible to kill those who are disabled or those who are "unfit.' The "undesirables" hurt the overall "homeostatic" nature of the rest of society."
Can you explain how the disabled are unfit?
Do you know what fitness is?
"That line of reason was pretty much responsible for eugenics and an attempt to create a ‘master race’ by killing those who are ‘unfit’"
Oh come on, I'm merely pointing out that higher order mammals have to ensure their society's sustained survival in order to ensure the adept individual's sustained survival.
Eugenics was based on racial disparities not homeostatic maintenance and sustainability of the immediate society.
"Kinda curious if you think smoking is immoral? It’s obvciously harmful to yourself and those around you."
When it begins harming "those around you," you may be leading away from the maintaining of the homeostasis of those around you.
Behavior toward yourself is not morality to me UNLESS this behavior impacts others.
How your actions affect others' homeostasis is morality to me.
"Also are you pro life? Taking your views to its logical conclusion it would appear that abortion would be immoral."
I'm pro choice in those cases where the woman would need to terminate the fetus in an attempt to preserve and maintain her homeostasis.
If someone who can consent wishes to sustain their homeostasis, they shall not be impeded.
Please stop claiming there's no evidence.
Understanding this is key.
Stop acting like you've refuted anything.
Stop acting like a gigantic pussy.
You can read, right?
How do you explain the lack of response from everyone when presented with this information?
In some cases survival may cause an individual to go against society, but for the most part, when considering that the sustained survival of the individual is contingent on the survival of the society, the most adapt individual is only benefited if they work to sustain the survival of the society.
Yeah, as a biology teacher I realized that one of the most universal things among us was homeostasis and our strive to maintain it. No culture, religion or worldview really ever changes that.
But thanks for the debate anyway, sorry for all of your mishaps.
God work.
Nope.
He, just like you, has no response.
I've been running this debate for 3 years now and not one response.
Funny, huh?
hahahahah, somehow, some idiot voter will still vote for you, so no worries right?
ok, ok, ok...geez
Imagine you're Pro in a debate about whether or not humans can fly.
If you define flying as moving long distances in the air and we end up having a debate about whether or not humans can do this, it would be irrelevant for Con to point out that humans don't fly in the scientific sense, i.e. they don't manipulate air resistance with an appendage to travel distance through the air. Flying in an airplane, though satisfies the definition of flying and humans do that all of the time.
Now imagine that Con, in the humans flying debate, said that "Humans can fly in the conceptual sense, not the objective, scientific sense."
If you don't see this as a concession, you don't understand how to apply definitions to a debate.
By Con OVERTLY affirming the resolution, you must vote Pro here.
It's the same thing.
Stop.
I already addressed that social constructs or conceptual hemispheres are still DENOTED TO BE EASTERN AND WESTERN, scientific or not.
Raltar, please look at the AGREED TO DEFINITIONS of east and west.
As long as they are DENOTED to be eastern and western, conceptually or not, they satisfy east and west.
Con also conceded that people denote these areas to be eastern and western.
Raltar, DO ANY OF THE DEFINITIONS MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT SCIENTIFIC OR OBJECTIVE EAST AND WEST?
If not, you're being a dishonest voter by allowing him that point.
Please read the definitions if you want to be an effective voter.
"When I say that if you are on the Western Hemisphere, the sun both rises and sets for you everyday and that if you are on the Eastern Hemisphere, the sun does the same."
I mean COME ON!!!
Don't start off on a dishonest note.
Um, he said that the sun rises in the west as much as it sets on it and it sets in the east as much as it rises on it.
This affirms the resolution, nearly word for word.
This site is a spillover site from DDO, on which I have the same name and a very extensive record.
Throughout my time on that debate site, which is nearly identical to this platform, I had so many dishonest voters vote me down, that I have to be very particular about everything in my debates. You can't count on mods to actually remove votes that are dishonest, so I put all of that in the rules and re-mentioned it to voters.
I mean, this debate has been conceded twice now by my opponent and I'll still have to battle off some dishonest voter.
No one threatened voters, it's just that dishonest people try to vote others down and they would clearly ignore a concession. So I tend to remind.
Yeah.
Read the debate and enjoy.
Hey you want to delete this debate?
It's just kinda sitting in both of our records.