Raltar is correct in that I capitalize these because they are names of God. These names have meaning though. Surely you know what The Truth means?
Something you and anyone who opposes my argument doesn't seem to understand is that I am not defining God into existence, this is how the concept is understood in Orthodox Theology, and it is not an English trick. This is what God is in every language.
The reason why me clarifying what God is won't be acceptable is because, like brutaltruth, accepting what God means will not be accepted by those who simply cannot accept this as being true.
It is the fallacy of invincible ignorance. It is also the only argument against God, which is not really an argument against God. It isn't really, because the argument is to make God a straw man or false god.
There is no argument against The Ultimate Reality, and that is what we understand God to be. No amount of denying this is going to change what is true.
I certainly did prove that is what God is, by using the dictionary to show that this was the definition of God, and then by showing the definition of the word definition, and then in showing how this definition is accurate to what the bible says.
Besides that, this is what the church acknowledges.
So no, you're refusal to accept these evidences is not because they aren't there or because they aren't conclusive.
As I said, your argument is that God isn't the ultimaye reality.
Like all atheist arguments about God, all you can do is make God into something that God isn't.
Your argument is weak. It is a straw man. God isn't The Ultimate Reality. That is your argument.
Yet, as the definition of definition shows, that is what God means.
So you are objectively wrong, and no amount of you accusing me of having cognitive dissonance or being defeated is going to change that. Reality does not bend at your arbitrary sense of personal aesthetics and willful ignorance.
I am not defining God into existence anymore than I am defining a tall wooden trunk with branches and leaves to be a tree.
Only in the case of God do people dispute what the dictionary says, because the dictionary makes it quite clear that denying this God is stupid and arbitrary.
I think it is worth mentioning that the reason why most of my argument is centered around identifying God as The Truth is not so much an attempt to prove God, but to show that the only argument an atheist has is to make a straw man.
There isn't actually an atheist argument against God, and when God is understood as The Ultimate Reality, it should become obvious, to those with discernment, that arguing against this God is utterly futile and downright crazy.
I have demonstrated quite thoroughly that God means the truth, and the truth stands on its own. I also pointed out the absurdity of proving the truth, because you need to use truth in order to proce that there is truth. If you don't believe in truth, how can truth be proven? I used an old argument I copped from St. Augustine... if you have doubts, you at least know that one thing is true.. that you have doubts.
Anyone who says there is no truth is crazy, and it amazes me that people actually argue about this. I am very secure that God is true and no sophistry or rhetoric can undermine this.
I already know what you think. You think that you can change the meanings of things written in the past by changing the way words are understood today.
Well, there are a continuity of writings stretching back thousands of years spanning multiple languages. I know what my God is.
And I know your veiled ploy to undermine the dictionary's authority when it comes to the defining of terms is a waste of time, because it doesn't change what I'm saying.
What am I saying? When I say God, I am talking about The Ultimate Reality.
What are you saying? Things written by people don't make those things true!
My God isn't made by the dictionary, you are wasting your time. Not only that, but I don't respect where you are coming from. You are striving about words to no profit.
Why? Because you are more interested in justifying yourself than understanding what I am saying, or really, understanding THE TRUTH.
You are being arbitrary. That is why you are asking this question. The purpose of it is so that you can say words are made up and everything is meaningless!
I don't respect your authority. You are are clearly arrogant and arbitrary. You are arguing with the dictionary because it accurately reveals your beliefs as worthless and stupid. You are too prideful to see this.
I'm not interested in arguing with you, it is foolishness to no profit.
If I lose the votes in this debate because the voters mistakenly claim that I didn't use sources or don't know how the dictionary works, I will consider that mighty lame.
But the truth is the truth whether or not the entire world disagrees with it.
Gnostic and agnostic are Greek words. You haven't proven anything other than the fact that you have an awful lot of faith in your understanding. I certainly could show you that what I am saying is true, but you aren't really agnostic. You think you know already.
Gnosticism is "knowingism". The defining characteristic of gnosticism is that their faith is in knowledge, not The Truth. There is a difference.
The way that he addressed your argument was satisfactory and the way the William Lane Craig would debate this. Instigator is pretty much arguing straight William Lane Craig.
I would recommend the book Reasonable Faith for you to read, it is pretty interesting.
I don't always address every argument someone might address toward me. That doesn't discredit my position. lf that was the case, the person who comes up with the most convoluted arguments would always be the best debater.
The Standard model of physics that is accepted and even believed on b ly those who out of ignorance of the subject matter deny God agree that there was a beginning of the universe.
Steven Hawking, who the instigator referenced spent his whole life trying to get around this, and despite his cleverness couldn't. People are still trying to work their way around this.
I'm not really interested in debating you on the comments section though, Instigator made a better case imo.
But I stand with my vote. As I said, your ignorance of what God means does not shift the burden of proof. I did read all the arguments. I also took points away from instigator for forfeiting which I believe was appropriate. Many words don't make the better argument.
You not understanding what God means does not shift the burden of proof to instigator.
You said there could be objective morality without God, but that doesn't make sense because there is no objectivity without God.
Instigator presented evidence began, which is what created means. It came into being. I find it much more difficult to believe that everything began to exist out of nothing for no reason than to believe that everything came into being because of a cause.
Sorry, I found instigator more convincing. Good show.
If God is good, and God is The Truth, what does that mean?
The Truth is good.
But besides the dictionary, the etymology of the word "omnibenevolent" literally means "all good will".
Which doesn't mean the same thing as all loving.
The oxford defines omnibenevolent as..
"possessing perfect or unlimited goodness"
Which is in line with what I am saying.
Yourdictionary.com is not an academically respected dictionary. Oxford and Merriam-webster both have very good dictionaries. I like Merriam-webster because I oftentimes can use less definitions to make the same point. Oxford is better for different purposes, like for example, studying the history of the English Language. Oxford has been around for a very long time and their dictionary is massive.
Merriam-webster's Collegiate dictionary is REALLY GOOD though.
It's ridiculous on multiple levels actually, because there are thousands of years worth of writing in the orthodox church from saints, but he wants to ignore everything from that in favor of simply the scripture.
Well, actually, the dictionary definitions are accurate to the God of Christianity, and that makes BrutalTruth's non argument invalid. His argument, like all atheist arguments, is simply to make God something other than what God means.
And scripture does support this assertion, so BrutalTruth might as well have forfeited a round.
It means God exists by definition. Not only does God exist, but there is nothing more real than God.
So you are mistaken, God absolutely exists, and saying that God doesn't exist is an invalid and self defeating position.
Note that claims about God are not the same thing as God. Most people, whether they believe in God or not are superstitious.
It isn't much different than people saying different things are true. Just because some people say false things are true doesn't mean you throw out the whole thing and say that there is no truth!
And when you say God doesn't exist, you are saying "There is no truth" because God is The Truth.
All atheist arguments are contingent on making God something other than what God is. There is a difference between God and god. The dictionary acknowledges these are seperate words. You don't have this problem in all languages. For example, God in Arabic is Allah while god in Arabic is illah. Another example, God in Chinese is The Tao while god in Chinese is shen. They are different words.
You are right though, a dictionary doesn't prove God exists, but it does clarify what is meant when we are speaking of God. In this case, it is all the proof that is really necessary, because if The Ultimate Reality doesn't exist, nothing is true, and that is ridiculous.
Because the God I am describing is what is understood in theology, and I know that if you deny this God, it stands to reason you aren't being honest because you don't believe in truth.
You are, after all lying about my lack of sources and taking the meanings of words to be arbitrary.
So if you want to lie, go ahead. You are have a right to be wrong.
People like me, tzarpepe, and whoever uses this argument will continue to do so until people like you stop arguing against straw men while pretending you aren't.
You say I didn't use sources, which is patently false. I used Merriam-webster, Oxford, and at least 2 theologians.
Besides that, using the dictionary to prove that God means The Truth is a legit argument. You are voting based on an aversion to God, not a real examination of the debate.
Being a legend is not a legitimate fourth option because as I demonstrated, pretty much everything story in history as well as the people involved fulfil the definition of being legends.
In other words, it isn't relevent.
Besides that, if you actually believe what it is Jesus is saying, to call Jesus Lord is to call God Lord, God being The Truth.
The Truth is certainly not a legend. A legend can be a liar or a lunatic. A legend can be mad or bad.
In fact, to call Jesus a liar or a lunatic... you might as well just be calling Jesus a legend. But to call Jesus Lord is to call God Lord, not a legend.
It's amazing to me that people will go to such lengths to deny God that even after being revealed to be truth itself they will still deny God.
Really amazing. All they can do is fumble around while plugging their ears up going "nuh uh! No no no!"
That is not how definitions work.
Raltar is correct in that I capitalize these because they are names of God. These names have meaning though. Surely you know what The Truth means?
Something you and anyone who opposes my argument doesn't seem to understand is that I am not defining God into existence, this is how the concept is understood in Orthodox Theology, and it is not an English trick. This is what God is in every language.
The reason why me clarifying what God is won't be acceptable is because, like brutaltruth, accepting what God means will not be accepted by those who simply cannot accept this as being true.
It is the fallacy of invincible ignorance. It is also the only argument against God, which is not really an argument against God. It isn't really, because the argument is to make God a straw man or false god.
There is no argument against The Ultimate Reality, and that is what we understand God to be. No amount of denying this is going to change what is true.
I certainly did prove that is what God is, by using the dictionary to show that this was the definition of God, and then by showing the definition of the word definition, and then in showing how this definition is accurate to what the bible says.
Besides that, this is what the church acknowledges.
So no, you're refusal to accept these evidences is not because they aren't there or because they aren't conclusive.
As I said, your argument is that God isn't the ultimaye reality.
Invincible ignorance.
Like all atheist arguments about God, all you can do is make God into something that God isn't.
Your argument is weak. It is a straw man. God isn't The Ultimate Reality. That is your argument.
Yet, as the definition of definition shows, that is what God means.
So you are objectively wrong, and no amount of you accusing me of having cognitive dissonance or being defeated is going to change that. Reality does not bend at your arbitrary sense of personal aesthetics and willful ignorance.
I am not defining God into existence anymore than I am defining a tall wooden trunk with branches and leaves to be a tree.
Only in the case of God do people dispute what the dictionary says, because the dictionary makes it quite clear that denying this God is stupid and arbitrary.
I think it is worth mentioning that the reason why most of my argument is centered around identifying God as The Truth is not so much an attempt to prove God, but to show that the only argument an atheist has is to make a straw man.
There isn't actually an atheist argument against God, and when God is understood as The Ultimate Reality, it should become obvious, to those with discernment, that arguing against this God is utterly futile and downright crazy.
I have demonstrated quite thoroughly that God means the truth, and the truth stands on its own. I also pointed out the absurdity of proving the truth, because you need to use truth in order to proce that there is truth. If you don't believe in truth, how can truth be proven? I used an old argument I copped from St. Augustine... if you have doubts, you at least know that one thing is true.. that you have doubts.
Anyone who says there is no truth is crazy, and it amazes me that people actually argue about this. I am very secure that God is true and no sophistry or rhetoric can undermine this.
Thanks for voting
"What authority"
EXACTLY
Go away
I gave you the definition of definition.
I already know what you think. You think that you can change the meanings of things written in the past by changing the way words are understood today.
Well, there are a continuity of writings stretching back thousands of years spanning multiple languages. I know what my God is.
And I know your veiled ploy to undermine the dictionary's authority when it comes to the defining of terms is a waste of time, because it doesn't change what I'm saying.
What am I saying? When I say God, I am talking about The Ultimate Reality.
What are you saying? Things written by people don't make those things true!
My God isn't made by the dictionary, you are wasting your time. Not only that, but I don't respect where you are coming from. You are striving about words to no profit.
Why? Because you are more interested in justifying yourself than understanding what I am saying, or really, understanding THE TRUTH.
You are being arbitrary. That is why you are asking this question. The purpose of it is so that you can say words are made up and everything is meaningless!
Get real. I'm not interested in talking to you.
Not an argument
I gave you an answer, and I was serious.
To me, you are the one who appears to be evading.
I don't respect your authority. You are are clearly arrogant and arbitrary. You are arguing with the dictionary because it accurately reveals your beliefs as worthless and stupid. You are too prideful to see this.
I'm not interested in arguing with you, it is foolishness to no profit.
Drafterman's arbitrary sense of personal aesthetics.
Here are some definitions of the word "definition" for you....
"a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol"
"a statement expressing the essential nature of something"
"the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making definite and clear"
"I don't know what a dictionary is or how it works, so I vote CON."
If I lose the votes in this debate because the voters mistakenly claim that I didn't use sources or don't know how the dictionary works, I will consider that mighty lame.
But the truth is the truth whether or not the entire world disagrees with it.
According to our common source. Merriam-webster....
History and Etymology for gnosis
Greek gnōsis, literally, knowledge, from gignōskein
Gnosis = knowledge
Agnosis = not knowledge
Epignosis = true or correct knowledge
I will happily give you more language lessons if it will help you through your superstitions.
Perhaps you shouldn't be as quick to judge.
Gnostic and agnostic are Greek words. You haven't proven anything other than the fact that you have an awful lot of faith in your understanding. I certainly could show you that what I am saying is true, but you aren't really agnostic. You think you know already.
Gnosticism is "knowingism". The defining characteristic of gnosticism is that their faith is in knowledge, not The Truth. There is a difference.
Gnostic = Know
Agnostic = don't know.
I'm telling you the truth.
Even though you are very haughty for an uneducated person, I love you anyway.
#1 I guess it's all just arbitrary then, right? The brutal truth is that your personal whim dictates reality?
#2 Gnostic means knowing. Agnostic means not knowing.
Judeo-christian monotheism
I know what that means.
It's in the description.
The way that he addressed your argument was satisfactory and the way the William Lane Craig would debate this. Instigator is pretty much arguing straight William Lane Craig.
I would recommend the book Reasonable Faith for you to read, it is pretty interesting.
I will do no such thing.
And I have been voted against on sources for using my opponent in a debate's sources which I don't think is fair.
It's a good thing that an arbitrary panel of judges doesn't determine what truth is, eh?
Even if I wanted to, I cannot change my vote.
I don't always address every argument someone might address toward me. That doesn't discredit my position. lf that was the case, the person who comes up with the most convoluted arguments would always be the best debater.
The Standard model of physics that is accepted and even believed on b ly those who out of ignorance of the subject matter deny God agree that there was a beginning of the universe.
Steven Hawking, who the instigator referenced spent his whole life trying to get around this, and despite his cleverness couldn't. People are still trying to work their way around this.
I'm not really interested in debating you on the comments section though, Instigator made a better case imo.
I know what the monotheistic God is.
The Supreme Being
The Ultimate Reality
The Absolute
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_(philosophy)
If that helps.
But I stand with my vote. As I said, your ignorance of what God means does not shift the burden of proof. I did read all the arguments. I also took points away from instigator for forfeiting which I believe was appropriate. Many words don't make the better argument.
Much love. God exists, it is a surety.
Leprechauns aren't defined to be "The Ultimate Reality".
Lol
You not understanding what God means does not shift the burden of proof to instigator.
You said there could be objective morality without God, but that doesn't make sense because there is no objectivity without God.
Instigator presented evidence began, which is what created means. It came into being. I find it much more difficult to believe that everything began to exist out of nothing for no reason than to believe that everything came into being because of a cause.
Sorry, I found instigator more convincing. Good show.
Merriam-webster...
omni-
"all : universally"
Benevolent
"marked by or disposed to doing good"
So all God does is good...
And omnipotence means God did it.
Everything God does is good.
If God is good, and God is The Truth, what does that mean?
The Truth is good.
But besides the dictionary, the etymology of the word "omnibenevolent" literally means "all good will".
Which doesn't mean the same thing as all loving.
The oxford defines omnibenevolent as..
"possessing perfect or unlimited goodness"
Which is in line with what I am saying.
Yourdictionary.com is not an academically respected dictionary. Oxford and Merriam-webster both have very good dictionaries. I like Merriam-webster because I oftentimes can use less definitions to make the same point. Oxford is better for different purposes, like for example, studying the history of the English Language. Oxford has been around for a very long time and their dictionary is massive.
Merriam-webster's Collegiate dictionary is REALLY GOOD though.
Omnibenevolent actually means "all good will" not "all/infinite loving"
You might as well forfeited your round because when you stopped at the intro, you ignored everything I said that proves those definitions accurate.
I'm on a 15 at work now, but when I post my next round you are going to get a whole lot more scripture.
And after that, you are going to regret dismissing my use of the dictionary. You certainly did not trap me, I read the description before I accepted.
I think you will find that this debate will not be as easy of a win for you as you had anticipated.
It's ridiculous on multiple levels actually, because there are thousands of years worth of writing in the orthodox church from saints, but he wants to ignore everything from that in favor of simply the scripture.
Well, actually, the dictionary definitions are accurate to the God of Christianity, and that makes BrutalTruth's non argument invalid. His argument, like all atheist arguments, is simply to make God something other than what God means.
And scripture does support this assertion, so BrutalTruth might as well have forfeited a round.
Well.....
That's a deep subject.
It's cool. I won't likely use all that time, it is really just a safety buffer.
I post throughout the day but that is because I usually have little 15 minute windows.
It'll be better for both of us to make good debate.
Look forward to it.
Type1 is a jobber. This debate was an open invite and he jumped on it.
In fact, that is why I don't do open invite debates anymore.
Why pretend I refused to debate you?
I'm sure you got both of my PMs.
Check you Pm I told you that I would gladly debate you if you increased the time berween rounds.
I am particularly busy on the weekend and I have engagements during the week besides my regular work.
You don't even know what God is.
That isnthe point of the dictionary.
The Supreme or Ultimate Reality.
What does that mean?
It means God exists by definition. Not only does God exist, but there is nothing more real than God.
So you are mistaken, God absolutely exists, and saying that God doesn't exist is an invalid and self defeating position.
Note that claims about God are not the same thing as God. Most people, whether they believe in God or not are superstitious.
It isn't much different than people saying different things are true. Just because some people say false things are true doesn't mean you throw out the whole thing and say that there is no truth!
And when you say God doesn't exist, you are saying "There is no truth" because God is The Truth.
All atheist arguments are contingent on making God something other than what God is. There is a difference between God and god. The dictionary acknowledges these are seperate words. You don't have this problem in all languages. For example, God in Arabic is Allah while god in Arabic is illah. Another example, God in Chinese is The Tao while god in Chinese is shen. They are different words.
You are right though, a dictionary doesn't prove God exists, but it does clarify what is meant when we are speaking of God. In this case, it is all the proof that is really necessary, because if The Ultimate Reality doesn't exist, nothing is true, and that is ridiculous.
Another one who doesn't accept the validity of the dictionary when it comes to the defining of terms.
Always amazes me.
Those who deny God by nature embrace arbitrariness.
In other words, you think all you have to do to win an argument is make a straw man.
Gotcha.
But you admit that God exists by conceding that The Ultimate Reality exists.
'Nuff said.
Yes, the specific definitions of God with a capital G.
Monotheist theology does not accept these other gods as being ultimately real. Only God is real. The Supreme Being. The Ultimate Reality. The Truth.
The Ultimate Reality, God, is not defined into existence, that's ridiculous.
And so is everything else you are saying.
Because the God I am describing is what is understood in theology, and I know that if you deny this God, it stands to reason you aren't being honest because you don't believe in truth.
You are, after all lying about my lack of sources and taking the meanings of words to be arbitrary.
So if you want to lie, go ahead. You are have a right to be wrong.
You are certainly entitled to be wrong.
People like me, tzarpepe, and whoever uses this argument will continue to do so until people like you stop arguing against straw men while pretending you aren't.
You say I didn't use sources, which is patently false. I used Merriam-webster, Oxford, and at least 2 theologians.
Besides that, using the dictionary to prove that God means The Truth is a legit argument. You are voting based on an aversion to God, not a real examination of the debate.
But what evs
I don't think half of these voters read the debate.
These people who are voting for con might as well be saying a tree is a rock because they are not respecting what the dictionary says
Being a legend is not a legitimate fourth option because as I demonstrated, pretty much everything story in history as well as the people involved fulfil the definition of being legends.
In other words, it isn't relevent.
Besides that, if you actually believe what it is Jesus is saying, to call Jesus Lord is to call God Lord, God being The Truth.
The Truth is certainly not a legend. A legend can be a liar or a lunatic. A legend can be mad or bad.
In fact, to call Jesus a liar or a lunatic... you might as well just be calling Jesus a legend. But to call Jesus Lord is to call God Lord, not a legend.