In Round 1 Con wrote
"In 2013, Putin offered Ukraines pro Russia government a $15BN loan and lower gas prices, if Ukraine President Yanukovych did not sign the EU Cooperation Agreement. Yanukovych agreed with Putin, and then the shit hit the fan. Massive Pro-EU protests spring up in 2014, which was called the Euromaidan Revolution, The EU then brokers a deal for the resignation of Yanukovych. Pro EU Poroshenko wins the new election.
As the political tied shifted so drastically, the predominant Russian populations in Crimea and Donbas, got very concerned. They wanted more Russian ties. So they held referendums in both regions. Russia accepted the Crimea referendum ...."
I think Con just slid over something important here. In 1994, Russia, US, UK, & Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum. That document guaranteed the then-current borders of Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons inherited from the USSR. After the pro-Russian Yanukovych was replaced by the pro-EU Poroshenko, Russia invaded Crimea. Because of the Budapest Memo., Putin felt he had to justify the invasion. His representative said “the security assurances were given to the legitimate government of Ukraine but not to the forces that came to power following the coup d’etat.” His thinking was that the removal of their guy and the election of another in Ukraine was a revolution, thus negating the memorandum.
I agree that the set of all numbers, all even numbers, all odd numbers, etc. is infinite.
What I don't understand is saying that the set of all numbers is greater than the set of all even (or odd) numbers.
To my way of thinking, the idea of "greater" becomes meaningless when comparing infinite sets.
In your estimation, what would qualify as a genuine Bible contradiction?
I have my own ideas, and after the first round of our debate, it's obvious that we don't agree upon what constitutes a real contradiction.
We should have cleared this up before we started, but we can do it now.
I need to know this before I can decide what to offer next.
A fertilized egg or an embryo is a potential human being, not an actual human being.
If I eat a fertilized chicken egg, you don't say that I ate a chicken, do you?
You did more than to criticize bad arguments. Criticizing your opponent's language is fair game; imputing a dishonorable motive to it is not. Imputing a motive is not a fact. You misunderstood the Kalam argument more than CON, and he called you on it. You said "Fallacy of composition. Just because everything in the Universe has a cause, It does not mean that the Universe also must have a cause.” The argument was that the universe has a cause because it began to exist. You also accused CON of an "appeal to popularity" when he was simply giving reasons why your statement that god would be useless was incorrect. There is much more that influenced my vote, along those same lines. I stand by my vote.
Maybe I should have said that you were disrespectful to your opponent then. You used sarcasm several times. You also accused CON of using complicated language in order to sound smart. How could you know that? Then, the final insult: "You don't understand the premises of your own argument. I cannot educate you on theology. Go do your research. I don't have enough characters left to explain such entry level philosophy. It would take me 400 more characters to explain the Kalam to you. I have other arguments to respond to." Definitely disrespectful.
You wrote:
John 14:6: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. "
So one has to choose Jesus in order to enter heaven. However, In the Calvinist view, We've already been selected to go to heaven. Why do we have to choose if God's chosen us already?
John is confused. In the verse you quoted (John 14:6), Jesus says "No one comes to the Father except through me."
Yet, in John 6:65 Jesus says "... no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. "
If true, these two verses make it impossible to come to Jesus or to the Father.
Thanks for the comment.
I had the idea that a human was watching each debate. I guess not.
In Round 1 Con wrote
"In 2013, Putin offered Ukraines pro Russia government a $15BN loan and lower gas prices, if Ukraine President Yanukovych did not sign the EU Cooperation Agreement. Yanukovych agreed with Putin, and then the shit hit the fan. Massive Pro-EU protests spring up in 2014, which was called the Euromaidan Revolution, The EU then brokers a deal for the resignation of Yanukovych. Pro EU Poroshenko wins the new election.
As the political tied shifted so drastically, the predominant Russian populations in Crimea and Donbas, got very concerned. They wanted more Russian ties. So they held referendums in both regions. Russia accepted the Crimea referendum ...."
I think Con just slid over something important here. In 1994, Russia, US, UK, & Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum. That document guaranteed the then-current borders of Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons inherited from the USSR. After the pro-Russian Yanukovych was replaced by the pro-EU Poroshenko, Russia invaded Crimea. Because of the Budapest Memo., Putin felt he had to justify the invasion. His representative said “the security assurances were given to the legitimate government of Ukraine but not to the forces that came to power following the coup d’etat.” His thinking was that the removal of their guy and the election of another in Ukraine was a revolution, thus negating the memorandum.
And how is one supposed to know what the one and only valid interpretation is. There are as many interpretations as churches.
I agree that the set of all numbers, all even numbers, all odd numbers, etc. is infinite.
What I don't understand is saying that the set of all numbers is greater than the set of all even (or odd) numbers.
To my way of thinking, the idea of "greater" becomes meaningless when comparing infinite sets.
Done.
Anything else?
I withdraw the question that I posted on March 1. It is no longer relevant.
In your estimation, what would qualify as a genuine Bible contradiction?
I have my own ideas, and after the first round of our debate, it's obvious that we don't agree upon what constitutes a real contradiction.
We should have cleared this up before we started, but we can do it now.
I need to know this before I can decide what to offer next.
What about different translations that differ sometimes? Do those count?
A fertilized egg or an embryo is a potential human being, not an actual human being.
If I eat a fertilized chicken egg, you don't say that I ate a chicken, do you?
I think the morals referred to by Christians are for humanity only.
God gets to do whatever it wants. After all, it is the all-powerful, etc.
You did more than to criticize bad arguments. Criticizing your opponent's language is fair game; imputing a dishonorable motive to it is not. Imputing a motive is not a fact. You misunderstood the Kalam argument more than CON, and he called you on it. You said "Fallacy of composition. Just because everything in the Universe has a cause, It does not mean that the Universe also must have a cause.” The argument was that the universe has a cause because it began to exist. You also accused CON of an "appeal to popularity" when he was simply giving reasons why your statement that god would be useless was incorrect. There is much more that influenced my vote, along those same lines. I stand by my vote.
Maybe I should have said that you were disrespectful to your opponent then. You used sarcasm several times. You also accused CON of using complicated language in order to sound smart. How could you know that? Then, the final insult: "You don't understand the premises of your own argument. I cannot educate you on theology. Go do your research. I don't have enough characters left to explain such entry level philosophy. It would take me 400 more characters to explain the Kalam to you. I have other arguments to respond to." Definitely disrespectful.
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.
>That scripture has to do specifically with Jews. This passage explains it better: etc.
I don't get it. To me it appears to explain the verse John 6:65 but not 14:6.
You wrote:
John 14:6: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. "
So one has to choose Jesus in order to enter heaven. However, In the Calvinist view, We've already been selected to go to heaven. Why do we have to choose if God's chosen us already?
John is confused. In the verse you quoted (John 14:6), Jesus says "No one comes to the Father except through me."
Yet, in John 6:65 Jesus says "... no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. "
If true, these two verses make it impossible to come to Jesus or to the Father.