Saturday, March 16, 2019

Time to get real ontological! (A facebook debate where I employed the ontologicl argument)

So I am (me) and my rival is an atheist named DC.  The other commentators are really not too much in the debate but I don't want to exclude the factor they played.

Wall Question:
Would you be emotionally stunned if you found out Christianity was false (ex. Christianity can be shown wrong if someone found the corpse of Jesus)

Matt SIngleton once you see the actual evidence it is ridiculous to think his corpse would be lying around somewhere.
The great stone of Mt Nebo authenticates the garden tomb.The garden tomb as well as the sudarium of Oviedo authenticate the shroud. The codes of anc
ient churches and extra history and british archaeological finds authenticate Joseph of Arimathea and show that the shroud was his holy grail/or inside it.
The body would have been out naked in which case it could have been found and it would not have survived 2000 yrs.
Then you have to ask the question WHO MOVED THE STONE??????

If you would take the time to learn the facts you would realize that this is conspiracy stuff is just a fantasy to cover up the fact that you choose eternity in Hell over eternity in paradise
When you have to deal with real facts like the apsotles were poor and if they could get the body stolen they could have saved themselves all the trouble and paid off the judge to begin with!

  • Matt SIngleton the fact that you believe any of that is telling

  •  Me: DC Yes it shows I am not stupid enough to gamble my life away and waste the lives of my friends and family.

  • Jesus' enemies would have proved the resurrection to the contrary at the time when evidence was fresh but they could not though they tried.
  •  you have no way of knowing they didn’t. That’s a really poor argument.
    We wouldn't be having this debate if they had.

DC:   Matt SIngleton your comment presupposes that belief is a choice. It isn’t.

It also ignore all the other god claims that you are gambling with by not believing in them.

me: Dc, No we have evidence and a good guide which gives assurance to our senses.

DC: EM again, you can’t know that. The only surviving texts regarding this were written much later by believers.

Matt SIngleton I know you have evidence. It’s just really poor evidence.
me: hey DC are you going to argue the "you can't prove a negative scam?
Because Godzilla is not in my living room. he is 450tall he doesn't fit.
SO I just proved a negative!!!!

Can you show me evidence that God does not exist?
DC:Matt SIngleton excuse me? No, but that is a nice strawman of that particular argument. Well done.

Me:btw, observations are a lot better evidence than theories 

Oh so you believe Godzilla is in my living room?

DC:Matt SIngleton that would depend on several factors
Matt SIngleton now you at playing games. Why would I believe such a thing?

Me:Because you don't want to show proof there is no God or defend your belief system. so then you have to hope that jessie smullet wins his case against the Chicago PD because they are proving a negative "he was not attacked and lied.

DC:Matt SIngleton you seem pretty confused on the basics of that argument. But since I wasn’t making it, I’m not sure why you even went there.

Me:I seem to be pretty confident you have nothing to argue.

BO:God gave us enough evidence to make it reasonable to believe. But he didn’t give us so much evidence that we can believe by reason alone. Blaise Pascal. There is one factor that the nonbeliever cannot even consider because he does not know him.

ah, and there is the rub. How can a non-believer ever be convinced then?

ME:We can believe by reason alone but our wills are twisted so that we do not naturally seek God.

Once you start trying to show why you have any evidence that what you believe is true. then you will find you have none. Also there is no gamble on my side. There is no atheist Hell to throw me in. If you are on a ship you had better know if there is an upcoming iceberg or your ship will sink. IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.
If there is a God you better search for it and be absolutely certain either way.
If that God is evil then you should be twice as afraid because He is bigger than you!

But because we have a good God it does not matter how bad you have screwed up thus far.
You may not like God but you need God.
God does not need you at all. Yet He loves you.

That is a strength you will one day need more than anything.

DC:Matt SIngleton again, you are gambling by not believing in all the other gods proposed.

gods are not God. I can prove God but gods need a creator. God is transcendent of space and time. gods are really just angelic forces at best and delusions as well as demons otherwise.
If you were to correctly define God you would eventually concede His existence. So you will make up a straw man in hopes of avoiding the conclusion.

DC:Matt SIngleton look, it’s really simple. I’ve never been a believer. Never. I’ve searched my whole life and never found a god claim that convinced me. Belief is not within my power. I’m simply not convinced by the evidence.

Now, your god knows exactl
y what evidence would in fact convince me that he is real.

By not providing me this evidence, he is denying me free will. As it stands now, I can’t choose whether or not to follow him. If o was convinced that he existed, then and only then would I have that choice.

Matt SIngleton “correctly define god” now we are defining things into existence?
Matt SIngleton obviously gods is merely the plural of god. Again, stop playing games
Me: DC you said belief is not in your power. therefore you are not seeking God. Heck you are admitting God exist and then blaming him for unbelief!

you can not know something is not true if you do not know what you are rejecting.

do you believe in the concept of zero?

DC: Matt SIngleton oh boy.... how can you be this confused. Belief in anything isn’t our choice. That’s not how belief works. Belief is an outcome.

And no, I’m not admitting god exists. I don’t believe he does.

Matt SIngleton that seems like a malformed question. The concept of zero defensively exists

Me:Do you believe that is a malformed Question or are you simply determined to make that response?

Is it possible for you to communicate clearly?

Me:But seriously you would agree with a basic grasp of zero even though you might not exhaustively know what zero absolutely is correct?

DC:Matt SIngleton the concept zero is true by definition.

Matt SIngleton and I think absolute certainty is a myth

Me:ok so is the concept of infinity the opposite of the concept of zero?

DC:Matt SIngleton sure, close enough for our purposes I guess. I mean not technically, but go ahead.

Me:So then when we look at various attributes there can be levels. Zero power-infinite power zero distance to infinite distance zero thought to infinite thought?

DC:Matt SIngleton wow, lots to unpack in that one. Are we still talking about mere concepts. And please define infinite thought. I’m not sure how you would even quantify such a thing.

Me: Dc There are some measurements of intelligence. Let's say you have someone considered braindead and it would be conceivable that they are barely thinking while you have genius mathematician who is doing incredible calculations. You would consider one more intelligent or thinking more thoughts consciously more quickly than the other. Am I right?

DC:Matt SIngleton ok.... I’m with you so far.

Me:Now when you conceive the universe. which I am defining as all material things. will the infinite surpass the material?

DC:Matt SIngleton based on your question as written -no. 
But again, are you talking about the concept of infinity, or a material reality?

ME:the infinite is limitless. You can believe the material universe is limitless, but how would it surpass be more infinite than infinite?
let me reiterate just in case.

would the concept of infinity surpass the concept of the universe? Are there limits concerning the universe?

DC: Matt SIngleton well you defines the universe as material in your last question. So there is that firstly. And secondly, that infinity are you describing. Are we still talking about thought?

Matt SIngleton I’m really trying to understand what you are asking. But it seems all over the place."

Me:David Costa ok, thought is one aspect.

But I have brought up a different part of the topic to move forward.

But yes if the universe is every material thing then would something/or quality infinite surpass the universe?"

Me:So then is material infinite? Or is infinity limited?

Matt SIngleton we don’t know. The material universe could very well be infinite, depending on what exactly we are talking about.

And no, infinity isn’t limited, by definition. But again, infinity is a concept. We have no evidence that anything infinite exists in reality.

BO: DC That my friend is up to the nonbeliever. A relationship with God involves seeking. Many nonbelievers become believers. So how do they get to the point of considering?

Me:Let me give you an illustration to the next point.
Assuming you are not a conspiracy theorist.

If we flew to the moon we could eventually find an aluminum American flag. The moon is claimed to be US property.
we have some certainty that there are not cows or little green men or cheese or aliens there.

So does the US have claim to the moon?

Ok, some time has elapsed So I will follow the logic.
The US did what it has done on earth.
They made a claim because they intended to claim and they had no opposition and so they took possession.

popular science concludes that the material universe has limits.
The 2nd law of thermos dynamics implies a finite end to the universe.
The big bang operates this way too.
Many physicist are considering the universe to be a hologram because of the massive amount of empty space in matter.

Thus the universe would not be unlimited.

logically the unlimited surpasses the limited.
But this would be an idea that surpasses your knowledge and yet it is still an idea.

There is a transcendent idea,
In order for you to preserve your worldview, you can not conceive this idea.
Because ultimately you may follow decartes.
Who could only trust certainty by starting from "I think therefore I am"
Then realizing the limitations that give him definition.
once you conceive of the limit you must define it in accordance with the infinite.
The infinite will swallow up all categories.
Thus be defined as the maximal. which is God.

Now you could claim that this only an idea. But the idea has escaped the immanent world.
just like that Alluminum flag there is a claim that you can not debunk.

You can still claim it is not real.

But if you have conceived the idea then not only will the logic follow but the idea is now in your real mind and you have to ask who planted it in you?

After 4 days it is safe to assume the debate has ended. my final answer was given an hour after the previous conversation.
The snare in DC's argument was when he attested that zero was a true concept by definition.  Thus he admitted that a theoretical absolute could be true by definition.  Once we believe in a transcendent concept we have ventured to belief in God.
The weakness is in moving from God as any monotheism to God as in Jehovah.