Author Topic: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread  (Read 1215 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline G-Roll

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 415
  • Darwins +45/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Reply #29 on: May 16, 2014, 08:21:04 AM »
Deities.
Not to be an ass pain but isn’t the word deity a synonym for the word god? Essentially a deity is a god? Maybe I am not understanding what you are trying to tell me?

 
Quote
That's not a problem with the definition. It would be a problem for me if I believed it existed.
True dat. I have no problem with your definition of perfection for a deity or god. I guess I just don’t see why people would want that. Perhaps I jumped to a conclusion.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11110
  • Darwins +291/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Reply #30 on: May 16, 2014, 08:25:59 AM »
Not to be an ass pain but isn’t the word deity a synonym for the word god? Essentially a deity is a god? Maybe I am not understanding what you are trying to tell me?

"Deity" can refer to any being who's very powerful.

True dat. I have no problem with your definition of perfection for a deity or god. I guess I just don’t see why people would want that. Perhaps I jumped to a conclusion.

Why would we want an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent being to exist, thereby making everyone and everything everywhere happy forever? Beats me.
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.

Offline G-Roll

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 415
  • Darwins +45/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Reply #31 on: May 16, 2014, 08:33:11 AM »
Why would we want an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent being to exist, thereby making everyone and everything everywhere happy forever? Beats me.
Lol yeah... It would have to care about us first though. Like looking down at ants and getting involved in their daily lives. Maybe that would all be encapsulated within a perfect deity. It's all-powerful benevolence smiling down on us. But like I said I can't comprehend such a being.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11110
  • Darwins +291/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Reply #32 on: May 16, 2014, 08:39:52 AM »
Lol yeah... It would have to care about us first though.
(...)
Maybe that would all be encapsulated within a perfect deity. It's all-powerful benevolence smiling down on us.

Yes, benevolence would mean that it would care, not only about us, but about every life form in the Universe.

Like looking down at ants and getting involved in their daily lives.

Don't you get involved with ants' lives? Even if it's only by not stepping on them?

But like I said I can't comprehend such a being.

Finite beings cannot fully comprehend infinity. It's like trying to cram the Universe into a grain of sand.[1]
 1. Yes, I know that, according to the Big Bang Theory, the Universe was once even smaller than that, but I think you get my point.
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.

Offline G-Roll

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 415
  • Darwins +45/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Reply #33 on: May 16, 2014, 09:10:20 AM »
Quote
Don't you get involved with ants' lives? Even if it's only by not stepping on them?
Nah I just squish em.

Quote
Finite beings cannot fully comprehend infinity. It's like trying to cram the Universe into a grain of sand.[1]
My point exactly. Even your statement of how a benevolent being would act is beyond my comprehension. I suppose though that if a creature were to act as the definition of benevolent it would behave in only a caring manner. How it goes about that or what is its opinion of what is the kind thing to do I don’t know.
Interesting thought  though.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11110
  • Darwins +291/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Reply #34 on: May 16, 2014, 11:58:39 AM »
Nah I just squish em.

I don't even wanna know.

My point exactly. Even your statement of how a benevolent being would act is beyond my comprehension.

Do we not have benevolent people on this planet?

I suppose though that if a creature were to act as the definition of benevolent it would behave in only a caring manner. How it goes about that or what is its opinion of what is the kind thing to do I don’t know.

If it didn't act as the definition of benevolent, it wouldn't be benevolent.

Interesting thought  though.

Meh.
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.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3034
  • Darwins +270/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Reply #35 on: May 17, 2014, 12:55:43 AM »
Don't you get involved with ants' lives? Even if it's only by not stepping on them?

One, You should watch Me walking home from the bus in the afternoon -- I'm so intent on not stepping on ants and other critters that it's hard to tell whether I'm working out dance steps or three sheets to the wind. ;D
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6771
  • Darwins +542/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Reply #36 on: May 17, 2014, 03:11:39 AM »
So far, if we count the number of questions asked, Lukvance is fully in control of, and has led, the debate. The rule to the effect of “give “yes/no” answers[1] was key to Lukvance’s winning. Very few questions can be answered by “yes/no” but a failure to do that could be met by invoking the rule and even losing the debate could be blamed on non-adherence to that rule.

For example if I say, “Should you kill people? Answer yes or no.” I cannot really want an answer because I have imposed an irrational term on the debate: you cannot answer “yes/no.”

We see that in http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26804.msg615129.html#msg615129 Lukvance uses this rule to advantage. "Remember the rule about yes or no questions? Now is the time to apply it : )"

The next technique that Lukvance has pulled is failing to define what “to exist” means. Now this may be a linguistic failing[2]: the careless use of language is a common trait in those propounding religious and political ideas, and this debate seems to be no exception.

The definition of exist should have been established and agreed at the very beginning.

No distinction has been made between
1.   “to exist” = to have a material existence, and
2.   “to exist” = to have an existence only as a concept.
3.   “to exist” = both of the above.

Additionally, none of the above indicate whether the thing deemed to “exist” can or does have an effect on other things (a) with a material existence and/or (b) that have an existence only as a concept[3]. It is obvious that “something that does not have a material existence” can affect your life. To deny it would be wrong. Here, Lukvance has very cleverly used definition 2 above.

In Lukvance’s post http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26804.msg615525.html#msg615525 I see that Lukvance seems to have taken the 3rd definition.
Quote from: Lukvance
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 cannot say for certain, but I suspect that Lukvance wants “to get past that quickly” so as to win the debate: and he will.

I do not think that anyone in their right mind would deny that gods exist as a concept, but no atheist and very, very few Christians would agree that God has a material existence.

Given the wording of the title of the proposition for debate, it seems to me that Lukvance cannot lose: all he has to do is to show that the concept of God’s existence has an effect on some people – it would be lunacy not to agree.

On the other hand, he is bound to lose if he thinks that he can show that “the concept of God” and “God” are the same thing: they are not.

(There is, within the debate, some question of whether miracles exist – this suffers from the same problems of definition: the concept of a miracle exists, a miracle itself does not.)
 1.  3. Yes or no questions must be answered by yes, no or other. We can of course, develop our answer if we want.”
 2. You might not know it because of his fluency, but Lukvance’s first language is not English.
 3. In http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26804.msg614973.html#msg614973 Lukvance brings in this argument “ Can something that doesn't exist influence your life?”.
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: 11110
  • Darwins +291/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Reply #37 on: May 17, 2014, 03:14:17 AM »
Graybeard, you should check a post where Lukvance asked me to define "existence". I did so, and it does not include concepts. I have no intention of losing this debate, nor do I feel I will.
As I've said three or so times now, Lukvance lost the debate when he agreed to it. The existence of his god (any god, in fact) has zero arguments that follow my challenge's rules.
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.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6771
  • Darwins +542/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Reply #38 on: May 17, 2014, 03:37:52 AM »
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26804.msg615767.html#msg615767

Quote
=Lukvance]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?

I would repeat: Lukvance is arguing one definition, you another: from the above, his latest post, It seems to me that Lukvance is still taking the third of my definitions for "exist".

If the debate serves to establish the existence of God via the type of nature that He has, then Lukvance and you should hammer out the definition of "exist" and arrive at a point at which you both agree.

It seems to me that you see a distinction between 1 and 2 and place "God" in 2, whereas Lukvance chooses 3 as an all-encompassing definition, thus making no distinction.

As a linguistic point, adverbs (e.g. "quickly") and adjectives/determiners (e.g. red/two) and abstract nouns (e.g. love, generosity) only "exist" as a concept and do not have a material existence. However, they can be said to "exist" as a concept, because we understand the words and know the concept.

« Last Edit: May 17, 2014, 03:42:57 AM by Graybeard »
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: 11110
  • Darwins +291/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Reply #39 on: May 17, 2014, 03:45:46 AM »
This is the definition I'm using.

Can something that doesn't exist influence your life?

Here's where the "iffyness" comes into play.
Thoughts and beliefs can and do influence your life. They can affect the way you perceive the world, for example. They are real.

Allow me to refine my 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).

Then, in a later post, Lukvance said this (bold for emphasis).

I'm still confuse. Not that I disagree with your definition, just that I'm not sure of its limits.
I'd like to take the "book next to me" example.
Is it possible that this book does not exist? (I made it up) If so, what part of your definition of "exist" it doesn't comply with?
Is it possible that this book exist? (I really have a book next to me) If so, does it comply with your definition of "exist"?

So Lukvance is arguing for the definition I'm using, even if he doesn't want to admit it. Therefore, he lost.
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.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6771
  • Darwins +542/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Reply #40 on: May 17, 2014, 08:46:57 AM »
Allow me to refine my 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).

Then, in a later post, Lukvance said this (bold for emphasis).

I'm still confuse. Not that I disagree with your definition, just that I'm not sure of its limits.
I'd like to take the "book next to me" example.
Is it possible that this book does not exist? (I made it up) If so, what part of your definition of "exist" it doesn't comply with?
Is it possible that this book exist? (I really have a book next to me) If so, does it comply with your definition of "exist"?

So Lukvance is arguing for the definition I'm using, even if he doesn't want to admit it. Therefore, he lost.
[/quote]
He has still kept his options open: he says, "Not that I disagree with your definition, just that I'm not sure of its limits."

He then goes on to ask more questions, within your answers he is looking for contradictions or weaknesses within your definition: he has not agreed 100%.

I still think that you two need to establish a proper definition. I do see yours as akin to mine, but I am not at all sure that Lukvance has quite the same concepts.
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: 11110
  • Darwins +291/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Reply #41 on: May 17, 2014, 08:52:47 AM »
He has still kept his options open: he says, "Not that I disagree with your definition, just that I'm not sure of its limits."

He then goes on to ask more questions, within your answers he is looking for contradictions or weaknesses within your definition: he has not agreed 100%.

If he hasn't, he should have made that clear. As far as I care, we are debating using my definition as a basis, which is why he cannot win. Ever.

I still think that you two need to establish a proper definition. I do see yours as akin to mine, but I am not at all sure that Lukvance has quite the same concepts.

For Lukvance, if you can conceive of it, it's real. Fluperwhooples? Real, because I just called them by their name. Imaginary numbers? Real as shit. Dot product between two collinear vectors that's exactly like (yields the same result as) the cross product between those same vectors? Real.
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.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Reply #42 on: May 17, 2014, 02:49:35 PM »
Graybeard
I am trying to demonstrate the existence of God as No 2. of your definitions.
In the yes or no rule we have also Other that allows to answer question like : "Should you kill people? Answer yes or no." With : "Other. It depends of the situation.Please clarify the situation."
I wanted to "get past that quickly" Because One Above All asked that much on post #25
You're worth more than my time

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6771
  • Darwins +542/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Reply #43 on: May 17, 2014, 03:13:14 PM »
Graybeard
In the yes or no rule we have also Other that allows to answer question like : "Should you kill people? Answer yes or no." With : "Other. It depends of the situation.Please clarify the situation."
So the yes/no rule is mainly guidance towards brevity, and should prevent either of you having to reply yes or no to a complex question. Good.

I'm not saying that my definitions need to be used or are exhaustive, but if
you are arguing towards 2, and OAA accepts 2 and
I assume that you both agree that 1 is valid...
then where is the debate?
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Reply #44 on: May 17, 2014, 06:51:13 PM »
Lol, you tell me! :) I want to prove that God exist with “to exist” = to have an existence only as a concept. We agreed already that God isn't material.
He wants to prove me wrong...
« Last Edit: May 17, 2014, 06:54:12 PM by Lukvance »
You're worth more than my time

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11110
  • Darwins +291/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Reply #45 on: May 17, 2014, 07:11:05 PM »
Lol, you tell me! :) I want to prove that God exist with “to exist” = to have an existence only as a concept. We agreed already that God isn't material.
He wants to prove me wrong...

If that's what you wanted to do, sucks for you. Because you still failed, even with your redefinitions, fallacies, and general failure to provide actual arguments.
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 One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11110
  • Darwins +291/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Reply #46 on: May 17, 2014, 07:13:41 PM »
So the yes/no rule is mainly guidance towards brevity, and should prevent either of you having to reply yes or no to a complex question. Good.

I'm not saying that my definitions need to be used or are exhaustive, but if
you are arguing towards 2, and OAA accepts 2 and
I assume that you both agree that 1 is valid...
then where is the debate?

I am only using definition 1 for this debate, as I doubt I could explain the difference between a concept existing as a concept and existing as a physical entity to Lukvance[1]. However, I now realize it doesn't really matter, as per the definition of "god" we're both using.
 1. Or anyone, really. This isn't Lukvance's fault, sort of. It's my own.
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 One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11110
  • Darwins +291/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Reply #47 on: May 18, 2014, 01:27:46 AM »
Lukvance, your last post debunked nothing. You simply re-asserted your victory, even though I debunked your argument. I take it that means you admit you've lost, even if only to yourself.
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.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3034
  • Darwins +270/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Reply #48 on: May 18, 2014, 02:22:47 AM »
Congratulations, OAA.   ;D
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11110
  • Darwins +291/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Reply #49 on: May 18, 2014, 02:24:01 AM »
Congratulations, OAA.   ;D

Thanks. Like I said, Lukvance lost the debate from the moment he accepted it.
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.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Reply #50 on: May 18, 2014, 02:26:36 AM »
I love how he says God is not material. LOL. And just how exactly did he determine this? What does this term "immaterial" even mean? Really, it is meaningless and refers to nothing.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1923
  • Darwins +82/-35
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Reply #51 on: May 18, 2014, 03:43:16 AM »
How do these debates get decided. i thought a third party or vote decides it.

please tell me the protocol.



personally i think luks position wad weak unless god is only an emotion and not the creator of the universe.
Signature goes here...

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11110
  • Darwins +291/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Reply #52 on: May 18, 2014, 03:47:02 AM »
I love how he says God is not material. LOL. And just how exactly did he determine this? What does this term "immaterial" even mean? Really, it is meaningless and refers to nothing.

That's a discussion for another time. Though not by me.

eh!, Graybeard is the one responsible for deciding who's won. However, Lukvance appears to want to put it up to a vote. He'll be disappointed.
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.

Offline eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1923
  • Darwins +82/-35
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Reply #53 on: May 18, 2014, 03:58:12 AM »
I think reducing or equating god to the same thing albeit conceptually as an emotion is degrading what most theists think their god represents.

strange position for a theist, i think his real aim was to trip you up in quasi-logical gymnastics .

Anyhoo good job OAA altho i think you let him play his own game too much and he had you digging or on the defensive too much by playing into his deliberate twists.

but what do i know i am new to this, in fact first formal debate i ever followed. thoroughly enjoyed it tho.

luk seemed desperate and dishonest imo.
Signature goes here...

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6771
  • Darwins +542/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Reply #54 on: May 18, 2014, 01:42:21 PM »
Lol, you tell me! :) I want to prove that God exist with “to exist” = to have an existence only as a concept. We agreed already that God isn't material.
He wants to prove me wrong...
If you are saying that

1. Concepts exist
2. It is possible to conceive of a god.
Therefore the concept of God exists,

Then that is fine but it does not show that God exists, merely that we can conceive of many things: I can give you my concept of the perfect world - the concept exists but not my perfect world.

The debate is on the existence of God; not the existence of the concept of God.

You may wish to review some of the arguments.
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: 11110
  • Darwins +291/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Reply #55 on: May 18, 2014, 02:02:33 PM »
<snip>
You may wish to review some of the arguments.

Lukvance already said he's ready to finish this by having the members vote on who they think won.

The debate is on the existence of God; not the existence of the concept of God.

I want to note that, for Lukvance, those are the same thing.
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.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Reply #56 on: May 18, 2014, 03:20:48 PM »
Well, what Luk has shown is that he wants to conflate existence (in general) with abstractions by existent physical brains. But those are not synonymous. If God is merely (and only) a concept, then God does not manifest in the world (such as we find in the New Testament), and thus God does not exist independently.

OAA Checkmated him in post #106 of the debate.

My vote:

[X] One Above All

[  ] Lukvance
« Last Edit: May 18, 2014, 03:22:36 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1923
  • Darwins +82/-35
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: Lukvance and OAA commentary thread
« Reply #57 on: May 18, 2014, 03:59:14 PM »
Is it a member vote or mod decision ??
Signature goes here...