Author Topic: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god  (Read 1267 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1960
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Reply #87 on: May 16, 2014, 08:24:42 AM »
Arg. We are back at the definition of existence. I wanted to get past that quickly because of all the comments saying I was stalling. It comes back biting me in the a**. grr

I think you made a mistake in your proof of the existence of quantity because you used a synonym of it to demonstrate it existence. It's like using 3.14...etc instead of pi to demonstrate pi.

Never mind. Let me try another approach this one is confusing me too much.
Does love exist?
You're worth more than my time

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10969
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Reply #88 on: May 16, 2014, 08:43:19 AM »
Arg. We are back at the definition of existence. I wanted to get past that quickly because of all the comments saying I was stalling. It comes back biting me in the a**. grr

I think you made a mistake in your proof of the existence of quantity because you used a synonym of it to demonstrate it existence. It's like using 3.14...etc instead of pi to demonstrate pi.

Never mind. Let me try another approach this one is confusing me too much.
Does love exist?

Define "love".

Also, Lukvance, I was honest in my offer for you to post in French, as long as you include what you think is an English translation of what you're saying and don't mind me replying in English.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1960
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Reply #89 on: May 16, 2014, 08:56:05 AM »
I will use Wikipedia's definition as I feel it encompass it the best
Love : Love is a variety of different feelings, states, and attitudes that ranges from interpersonal affection ("I love my mother") to pleasure ("I loved that meal"). It can refer to an emotion of a strong attraction and personal attachment. It can also be a virtue representing human kindness, compassion, and affection—"the unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another". It may also describe compassionate and affectionate actions towards other humans, one's self or animals.
You're worth more than my time

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10969
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Reply #90 on: May 16, 2014, 03:05:27 PM »
I will use Wikipedia's definition as I feel it encompass it the best
Love : Love is a variety of different feelings, states, and attitudes that ranges from interpersonal affection ("I love my mother") to pleasure ("I loved that meal"). It can refer to an emotion of a strong attraction and personal attachment. It can also be a virtue representing human kindness, compassion, and affection—"the unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another". It may also describe compassionate and affectionate actions towards other humans, one's self or animals.

Then yes, it does, as electrochemical interactions in the brain. Not as actual, physical entities. I say this last part because I've heard this before and I know where this is going.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1960
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Reply #91 on: May 16, 2014, 03:35:43 PM »
Good. Then I'm going with "God exist as much as Love exist"
You can see the effect of love in the people.
You can see the effect of God in the people.
You can feel love as much as You can feel God.
When you believe in love your life is better. Same thing with God.

Unfortunately all the proof that I have for the existence of love are testimony from people. Same thing with God.

I agree with you that God is not an actual, physical entity. But he exist and that is what was asked to demonstrate here.
You're worth more than my time

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10969
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Reply #92 on: May 16, 2014, 03:39:41 PM »
Oh, wow. I am surprised. How am I ever going to counter such a flawless argument?[/sarcasm]

Tell me, is your god an emotion?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1960
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Reply #93 on: May 16, 2014, 03:46:36 PM »
No. But He is the cause of many emotions.
You're worth more than my time

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10969
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Reply #94 on: May 16, 2014, 03:50:34 PM »
No. But He is the cause of many emotions.

Then you have not provided an argument for anything. Emotions are different from physical entities. You can prove that an emotion exists because of the way they make you feel, since that's all they do. You can't prove a physical entity exists because of the way you feel. Emotions are not proof of anything other than their existence.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1960
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Reply #95 on: May 16, 2014, 03:55:07 PM »
Then you have not provided an argument for anything.
Yes it was the proof of the existence of God.

Quote
You can't prove a physical entity exists because of the way you feel.
I totally agree with you. No physical entity.
You're worth more than my time

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10969
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Reply #96 on: May 16, 2014, 07:47:53 PM »
Yes it was the proof of the existence of God.

You do realize that logic alone (in this case) is proof of nothing, right?

I totally agree with you. No physical entity.

Allow me to restate something I said that you ignored:
Then you have not provided an argument for anything. Emotions are different from physical entities. You can prove that an emotion exists because of the way they make you feel, since that's all they do. You can't prove a physical entity exists because of the way you feel. Emotions are not proof of anything other than their existence.
Bold for emphasis.

If your god is not a physical entity (although that's just plain impossible if it's alive, but that's a discussion for another time), then focus on the bold part and replace "physical entities" with simply "entities".
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1960
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Reply #97 on: May 16, 2014, 08:57:20 PM »
You do realize that logic alone (in this case) is proof of nothing, right?

No. When logic was not enough to prove something?
Then you have not provided an argument for anything. Emotions are different from physical entities. You can prove that an emotion exists because of the way they make you feel, since that's all they do. You can't prove a physical entity exists because of the way you feel. Emotions are not proof of anything other than their existence.
Good thing that existence was what I wanted to prove.
You're worth more than my time

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10969
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Reply #98 on: May 16, 2014, 09:15:13 PM »
No. When logic was not enough to prove something?

Ever heard of String Theory? Mathematically (logically), it all adds up perfectly. Yet it has not been proven because we can't observe evidence (because we can't design an experiment to test it that we can perform) for it.

Good thing that existence was what I wanted to prove.

Did you read the "their" part? "Their" is a possessive pronoun. In that context, it means that emotions are not proof of anything other than the existence of emotions.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1960
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Reply #99 on: May 16, 2014, 09:21:03 PM »
Ever heard of String Theory? Mathematically (logically), it all adds up perfectly. Yet it has not been proven because we can't observe evidence (because we can't design an experiment to test it that we can perform) for it.

Yes, love that Theory...the more I look at it the more complex it gets. So I don't look anymore. Are you saying that the string theory does not exist?

Quote
Did you read the "their" part? "Their" is a possessive pronoun. In that context, it means that emotions are not proof of anything other than the existence of emotions.
So, they exist or don't exist?
You're worth more than my time

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10969
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Reply #100 on: May 16, 2014, 09:33:30 PM »
Yes, love that Theory...the more I look at it the more complex it gets. So I don't look anymore. Are you saying that the string theory does not exist?

I'm saying that logic does not prove it.

So, they exist or don't exist?

Tell me, when was the last time you took an English class? Do you even speak English, or are you just using an online translator? Because there's no conceivable way you could misinterpret what I said unless you're just trying to stave off defeat. Which sucks for you, because, as I said, you were defeated the moment you accepted my challenge.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1960
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Reply #101 on: May 16, 2014, 10:55:59 PM »
That's funny. I am winning this debate because of a technicality of the English language.
I used logic to prove the existence of God.
When you use logic to prove that something exist. That thing must exist. I agree with you that you can find things that logic do not prove. But not when it comes to existence.
What is your counter argument?
You're worth more than my time

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10969
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Reply #102 on: May 17, 2014, 02:24:05 AM »
That's funny. I am winning this debate because of a technicality of the English language.
I used logic to prove the existence of God.

No, you didn't. You said "emotions exist". Then you said "my god exists". When I asked if your god was an emotion, you said "no". Therefore, what you did was use a non-sequitur.
*whisper*You should really study some logic before getting into a debate.*whisper*

When you use logic to prove that something exist. That thing must exist. I agree with you that you can find things that logic do not prove. But not when it comes to existence.
What is your counter argument?

Say you defined something as something that existed. It's part of its definition. Therefore, logically, it must exist. But it doesn't. See the problem?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1960
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Reply #103 on: May 17, 2014, 12:23:45 PM »
No, you didn't. You said "emotions exist". Then you said "my god exists". When I asked if your god was an emotion, you said "no".
I didn't stop there. I said no because you were trying to reduce God to one of his part. I could have answer YES God is an emotion and much more! (Since he is everything)
No more non-sequitur :)

Quote
Say you defined something as something that existed. It's part of its definition. Therefore, logically, it must exist. But it doesn't. See the problem?
Not really. I thought that when you prove logically the existence of something that you cannot start with saying that the thing exist or existed. Didn't you taught me that with your "non-sequitur" and "fallacy" stuff?
You're worth more than my time

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10969
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Reply #104 on: May 17, 2014, 12:47:15 PM »
I didn't stop there. I said no because you were trying to reduce God to one of his part. I could have answer YES God is an emotion and much more! (Since he is everything)
No more non-sequitur :)

So now your god is everything? You're a pantheist? That's news to me, since:
A - The Bible claims no such thing.
B - When I defined what "perfection" meant to me and said that it was the only thing I would worship, you didn't say "But that's not my god!". You accepted my definition. In fact, you said this:
Thank you.
Do you agree that if God existed he would be perfect? Omniscient, omnipotent, infinite?
Bold mine for emphasis.
I see nothing that says "God is everything".
Shifting goalposts. Debate (predictably) lost.

Not really. I thought that when you prove logically the existence of something that you cannot start with saying that the thing exist or existed. Didn't you taught me that with your "non-sequitur" and "fallacy" stuff?

Defining it as something that exists is a fallacy (though I'm not sure it has a formal name), but not because you're assuming it exists. It's just part of its definition.

I will be ignoring any comments from now on that are not arguments for the existence of your god as you defined it in the post I quoted here and according to the definition of existence we both agreed to at the start of the debate. Not because I can't debunk them. Just because they are not the point of this thread. Engaging in such tactics has already cost you a victory. Then again, your very opinion has cost you a victory. Anyway, either put up or shut up.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1960
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Reply #105 on: May 17, 2014, 02:40:05 PM »
I just read the comments.
You shouldn't be able to claim victory on any argument. It's against the rules. Submit the argument and your counter argument to our judge and he will decide who is the winner. For now I definitely do not admit defeat as per your suggestion.

Let me clear things up about the existence and my definition of it.
Exist : Whatever as a name and a definition.
Real : There are different degrees of reality. The more the thing affect me the more it's real.

Now about your definition of exist :
"Exist: Something that can influence something else directly (without the use of an intermediary, such as a person acting on their belief in a deity, although the belief itself does affect them directly)."
According to that :
Numbers don't exist.
Mathematics don't exist.
Colors don't exist.
Infinite don't exist.
Perfection don't exist.
Basically not much exist but the physical palpable world.

Here is the kick. You acknowledge the existence of things (quantities and emotions) that do not follow your rules of existence.

Since the Reply #25 : "Also, note that this is taking longer than I'd like. Let's get over this quickly and get to the debunking of all arguments you can put forth. You are asking me to cut this discussion short." you wanted me to finish this quickly so I stopped looking into the definition of existence and accepted yours...even if I did not completely agree.
On reply #87 I stop trying to understand your world and jump into mine.

"God is everything" is just a saying. Nothing to stop your counter argument there. I told you
SINCE God is an emotion AND emotions exist THEN God exist. (if only partially)
Q.E.D.(from the Latin quod erat demonstrandum)
or CQFD (Ce Qu'il Fallait Démontrer) in french.

I don't need to demonstrate that God is omnipotent omniscient and infinite to win this debate. I just need to demonstrate that he Exist.
If you want me to demonstrate that God is omnipotent omniscient and infinite We could do it on another debate and close this one on my win :)
« Last Edit: May 17, 2014, 02:47:21 PM by Lukvance »
You're worth more than my time

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10969
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Reply #106 on: May 17, 2014, 07:09:42 PM »
Let me clear things up about the existence and my definition of it.
Exist : Whatever as a name and a definition.
Real : There are different degrees of reality. The more the thing affect me the more it's real.

If you didn't accept my definition of "real" and "existence", tough. You should've said so. As far as I care, we're arguing for my definition of those terms. You don't get to redefine terms mid-debate just so you can "win"[1].

Now about your definition of exist :
"Exist: Something that can influence something else directly (without the use of an intermediary, such as a person acting on their belief in a deity, although the belief itself does affect them directly)."
According to that :
Numbers don't exist.
Mathematics don't exist.
Colors don't exist.
Infinite don't exist.
Perfection don't exist.
Basically not much exist but the physical palpable world.

Colors do exist. They are a big part of the absorption and emission spectrum. Perfection can't exist because it's logically inconsistent, but, if it wasn't, it would certainly exist.

Here is the kick. You acknowledge the existence of things (quantities and emotions) that do not follow your rules of existence.

Emotions affect people directly, as they are in the brain. Quantities exist as per a requirement of the existence of other things, as things exist in amounts/quantities, or don't exist at all. You can't have zero (none) toilet paper rolls, for example, and expect to wipe your ass. You need an amount of toilet paper rolls.

Since the Reply #25 : "Also, note that this is taking longer than I'd like. Let's get over this quickly and get to the debunking of all arguments you can put forth. You are asking me to cut this discussion short." you wanted me to finish this quickly so I stopped looking into the definition of existence and accepted yours...even if I did not completely agree.
On reply #87 I stop trying to understand your world and jump into mine.

Again, tough. You don't get to redefine terms mid-debate.

"God is everything" is just a saying. Nothing to stop your counter argument there. I told you
SINCE God is an emotion AND emotions exist THEN God exist. (if only partially)
Q.E.D.(from the Latin quod erat demonstrandum)
or CQFD (Ce Qu'il Fallait Démontrer) in french.

One shouldn't use the most holy of languages (hint: it's not French) if one doesn't respect it.
Let me tell you why you're wrong.
What was that definition of "perfect" we both agreed to after you said that, if a god existed, he would be perfect? That's right: omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. A concept is none of these three things. It's not even partially any of those things. A concept can't turn a black hole inside out. A concept doesn't know if the edge of the Universe is made out of cardboard. A concept doesn't care for the suffering of others. Therefore, a god, as we both defined it, does not exist.
Quod erat demonstrandum.

I don't need to demonstrate that God is omnipotent omniscient and infinite to win this debate. I just need to demonstrate that he Exist.

And you've failed. Amazing, isn't it?
 1. There's a reason I put "win" in quotes. Because, even with your new redefinitions, you don't win.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1960
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Reply #107 on: May 17, 2014, 09:05:03 PM »
 Again if I was to prove that God existed per these term I wouldn't consider this debate closed. But the title does not say "debate on the ominicience of God" or "debate on the omnipotence of God" it says "debate on the EXISTENCE of God"
I proved that he existed as an emotion. So if you don't have any other counter arguments we could ask the third party to officiate the following claim : "God exist" :)
You're worth more than my time

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10969
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Reply #108 on: May 18, 2014, 01:09:54 AM »
You proved nothing, because that was not the point of this thread. You provided an argument for the existence of an emotion that you call "God". However, given that the term "God", as we both define it, is not and cannot be an emotion, you failed in proving that it exists. Show me where I'm wrong or admit defeat.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1960
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Reply #109 on: May 18, 2014, 01:56:19 AM »
Here is where you are wrong : I'm not the only one to call it God.
You should have say "You provided an argument for the existence of an emotion that we call God"
Since emotions exist Then God exist.

Ps : For future reference, the definition of God, for me, is the following : the one with all the qualities imaginable (the ultimate best)
So, of course, he has omnipotence, omniscience and infinite as qualities.
You're worth more than my time

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10969
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Reply #110 on: May 18, 2014, 02:00:36 AM »
Here is where you are wrong : I'm not the only one to call it God.
You should have say "You provided an argument for the existence of an emotion that we call God"
Since emotions exist Then God exist.

That's not an argument, as I've explained why a god cannot be an emotion, because emotions are not omnipotent, omniscient, or benevolent. They don't even follow your definition of the term "God". Refute or accept. Those are your only two intellectually honest options. You keep choosing the intellectually dishonest path. Why is that?

Ps : For future reference, the definition of God, for me, is the following : the one with all the qualities imaginable (the ultimate best)
So, of course, he has omnipotence, omniscience and infinite as qualities.

See above.
Also, I'd like to note that your god is a dude. Of course. "Ultimate best". Gotcha.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1960
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Reply #111 on: May 18, 2014, 02:18:16 AM »
Anyway. If that's all you have as counter argument. I'll put my argument to a vote.
SINCE God is an emotion AND emotions exist THEN God exist.
Your counter argument
"A god cannot be an emotion, because emotions are not omnipotent, omniscient, or benevolent. They don't even follow your definition of the term "God"."
Agreed?
You're worth more than my time

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10969
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Reply #112 on: May 18, 2014, 02:21:48 AM »
This part is the essence of the argument:

"God is everything" is just a saying. Nothing to stop your counter argument there. I told you
SINCE God is an emotion AND emotions exist THEN God exist. (if only partially)
Q.E.D.(from the Latin quod erat demonstrandum)
or CQFD (Ce Qu'il Fallait Démontrer) in french.

Let me tell you why you're wrong.
What was that definition of "perfect" we both agreed to after you said that, if a god existed, he would be perfect? That's right: omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. A concept is none of these three things. It's not even partially any of those things. A concept can't turn a black hole inside out. A concept doesn't know if the edge of the Universe is made out of cardboard. A concept doesn't care for the suffering of others. Therefore, a god, as we both defined it, does not exist.
Quod erat demonstrandum.

Show either this or the whole debate. I don't care either way, since I know what will happen.

I think you'll be negatively surprised by the results.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6645
  • Darwins +527/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Reply #113 on: May 18, 2014, 04:03:26 PM »
Lukvance, One Above All,

Thank you for an entertaining debate that says much about both of you.

I remind myself that the title of the debate is “Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god.”

Lukvance supported the proposition, OAA opposed it.

The debate ended at #112 and, in their final posts the debaters concluded:

Lukvance: SINCE God is an emotion AND emotions exist THEN God exist.

Lukvance,
You will note that your conclusion cannot be a conclusion as it starts with the rather startling claim, “SINCE God is an emotion…”

I cannot see anything in support of that statement.

In addition, this does not address the title of the debate. The debate was never as to whether the Judeo-Christian god (God) existed but as to whether a god existed.

I must admit that
Ps : For future reference, the definition of God, for me, is the following : the one with all the qualities imaginable (the ultimate best)
 
Also took me by surprise as one of these qualities would be “non-existence”, your new, and very late definition, is thus not very supportive of your position. Neither is it supported by anything you said.

Even if it were supportive of your position and you intended “All the best positive qualities.” This only explains what the Judeo-Christian god is to you. That was never a topic of the debate.

In the first, second and third pages of the debate, you seemed not to understand that numbers are merely a measure of quantity and that when there is nobody around, there are no numbers: numbers are human concepts without a real existence: they are attributes to a noun. Thus anything based upon your idea of numbers having an independent existence or even existing, other than as a concept, is wrong.

This post of yours:

Let's take pi for example.
"Those are the definitions of the quantities." Is "pi" the definition of the quantities? I don't get it.

Is a failing on your part. Your opponent is not required to explain things to you: he explains it to the reader and the reader read it and understood.

Next, you have never established a link between a concept and an emotion nor an emotion and a god.

In the debate, you agave no evidence of anything. You did not respond to OAA. You merely questioned.

I conclude that you have misdirected yourself and made statements without evidence. This makes your claims unreliable.

In his final statement, OAA agreed the concept of a god had an existence but then addressed the attributes of concepts, and the various attributes that a concept lacked. He correctly concluded that a concept has no real existence. Therefore, although the concept of a god existed, a god did not exist.

OAA:
I have to point out that the concept of something existing and the actual existence of that something are not related. We hear daily of new animals whose existence was never conceived (i.e. we had no concept of their existence) but that suddenly are found.

This aside, I can see no points at which you made claims that are not common knowledge or well-established facts.


___________________________________________________________________________________________


Based upon the arguments of both sides, the question of a god’s existence has not been established. To win the debate, Lukvance had to establish this. He did not.

OAA wins the debate.

Finally, I would like to point out that it was never required that the lack of existence of a god should be shown.

Thank you to both debaters.

GB

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10969
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Reply #114 on: May 18, 2014, 04:53:38 PM »
OAA:
I have to point out that the concept of something existing and the actual existence of that something are not related. We hear daily of new animals whose existence was never conceived (i.e. we had no concept of their existence) but that suddenly are found.

As I said in the comment thread, I could not conceive of a way to explain the difference to Lukvance. This inability is due to two main factors:
Lukvance's native language.
Lukvance's opinion on what it means to "exist".


OAA wins the debate.


As expected.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1960
  • Darwins +13/-257
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Reply #115 on: May 19, 2014, 09:05:30 AM »
This is where I proved the Since God is an emotion part.
Did you miss it? It never was refuted.

Good. Then I'm going with "God exist as much as Love exist"
You can see the effect of love in the people.
You can see the effect of God in the people.
You can feel love as much as You can feel God.
When you believe in love your life is better. Same thing with God.

Unfortunately all the proof that I have for the existence of love are testimony from people. Same thing with God.

I agree with you that God is not an actual, physical entity. But he exist and that is what was asked to demonstrate here.
"Next, you have never established a link between a concept and an emotion nor an emotion and a god." Really?

"In the debate, you agave no evidence of anything. You did not respond to OAA. You merely questioned. " which one of his question was without answer?
« Last Edit: May 19, 2014, 09:09:36 AM by Lukvance »
You're worth more than my time