chek <#266407776178143233> for all the debate match details

Will there be a Q&A session post-debate?

yes

Should the subsequent duel be with swords or pistols?

@PiusXIII @Myth just fyi the stream on Dlive is echoing pretty bad

in the collesum

and the voice is not synced with the stream

@Beemann flesh swords and meat pistols**

it's gamer time 😎

woof

D:

Thomas Aquinas give us strength

and I'm pretty certain I know how this debate is gonna go even before the finishing of Pius' summary

@Spartan322 pray tell

Fuck there's a lot of us listening lol

schrodniger's cat is a thought experiment about a specific interpretation of quantum theory

the majority of the subject is beyond scope and its gonna lead on the subject

19 people in all

God is a theory

*surprised Pikachu*

its also (currently) entirely based on specific interpretations of a variable theory

which isn't definitively known or defined

God was / is a tool that was used to control vast groups of people. Do this, don't do that or god will smite you. You don't wanna be dust do you, fall in line

broke take

idk why I'm listening to two people who don't know what they're talking about debating with each other

I'm a little dejected, I was hoping this would be more specific and definitive

yeah later folks have a nice rest of your evening :)

I still am willing to try and propose a ponder on the subject later on or post-debate/post-QA, but anything I'll end up saying would probably break the discussion

Tbh metaphysics was probably a bad jumping point for a first debate. It honestly works better as a discussion anyway

partly, but the bigger issue is broken theologic foundation

you can't argue this unless you have a definite form for the subject which just to point out is by definition of omnipetence impossible

Metaphysics always meanders on

thus humanistic reason can not achieve a definitive nor reasonable explaination regarding some god or the God

Just get proof god exists, all these other arguments are meaningless

man would not believe no matter the proof

if A then B then C

Nah, it still doesnt quite follow

You could prove a higher power exists and it could be not-God

Or it could be one of many higher powers

but you'll always get stuck on what created those beings

which becomes circular

The Great Will my dude

if its omnipetent then you still can't explain its existence through humanistic reason

I came to watch two nerds yell at eachother.

Muh movers
I do need to legit read more about gnosticism though

I'm waiting for it to get passive aggressive.

only thing I need to ponder on is how fat dat ass --->>>🍑

God for those who believe is a journey to proof that will never be found but it's the journey that matters.

Lame journey

just to point out that's not true, at least for Christian Theologians

The cosmological argument is bullshit. It's just another God of the gaps argument. "I can't imagine what could have caused the universe to exist therefore it MUST have been God"

isn't this argument a rather god of the gaps argument? which is a very safe but pointless point to hold?

Richard Carrier of Atheism+ fame countered with the Universe As God response

its a problem of poor understanding of non-supernaturalists

and bad theologic understanding

Which was interesting to read through

This whole discussion is for fags at the end of the day.

as literally zero religions in existence argue that all their god did was be the first observer.

@Holmes10 yeah but that's not what this debate is about

and @Mongo Jongo yeah this is a very academic discussion

If we accept that there must be a mover, and the universe exists, why can the universe not be its own mover, as God would necessarily be the first mover if used as a cause

Word salad

What is?

this is gonna be rephrased 6 times before somebody says enough

and the argument itself will never change

Oh in the actual debate

Aight gs.

Not you beeman...

I've heard self causing one too many times.

Was confused for a moment lol

I'mma head out 🤗👌🏽😎

Peace homie

this isn't the reason I state you can't argue to God

@TheCompanyMan lol

but it is an example of the problem

@A. Spader 😘

@Mongo Jongo someone finally got my "post-debate duel" being flesh swords and meat cannons joke

to point out from a theologic foundation you can't engage the mind to God either

Bravo, good sir

this is just Pius word salading around Spader. pretty lame. he is defending the most minimalist form of god. which I'll grant does satisfy the statement but is a pretty semantic and kinda lame one.

@Holmes10 yeah because Pius is defending the existence of God, not his character

its a God of the gaps argument which is theortical

At least with the impeachment stuff today Devin Nunes added some humor, this could use some humor 🙂

I agree the debate is pretty pedantic but Fond wouldn't debate the character of God

Yeah this conversation is pretty low T and dry.

because that's a theological discussion more than a philisophical one

also the default position is that something doesn't exist and that position must be refuted not proven.

the only manner in which you can actually confirm God is through theological foundation arguing in a moral base, a philosphy of God will never actually definitively confirm a god

>fond wouldn't debate the character of God
Why not?

oh I meant in the same way

because you have to define God existing first

not that he'd refuse

Oh ok

a debate on the character of God would be a debate on the Bible, if it was Pius and Fond

and that's not the same sort of debate at all

I will grant that.

It would likely be more interesting

this is a very stripped down form of evidencial apolgetics through philosphy

just ask Pius to prove god exists, that would be a good start

^^

tho if it was an actual evidencial apolgetics argument then at least it be somewhat fun

granted they still suck

what sort of evidence do you have in mind?

He challanged Fond to this debate saying he could prove it, then do so

@FrostyCrits how

that's a churlish attempt in fuility

@everyone There are 5 minutes left of open debate there will be an Q & A after please @ me with questions, who they are for and whether you would like to speak them on your mic or have me read them

I WANT PICTURES OF GO...I mean SPIDER-MAN!

@A. Spader for hypothetical conclusive evidence or evidence he could use?

yeah

loving the auto mute

As I see it, there is no way, can't prove a negitive

Former or latter?

like is this gonna be some sort of naturalist debate or something about the mark of divinity?

This whole debate is literally to jerk of egos.

*off

that's not the sort of logical argument that you can have on say, national immigration policy

^

Most of the people on Discord are Believers or Christains etc?

I actually like outlining hypothetical proofs for God. It would have been really easy to do tbh

its a philosphy major vs. what even is FondBoy?

@Peachpanther I don't think so

Where is the debate taking place?

Debate VC

^

Debate?

Lmao

Tyty

The chat in this channel is better then the debate imho 🙂 We have said more of relevance then they have

@Frenchinator too

I haven't listened to the debate

It's pretty bad.

tbf we boiled down the core of the argument that took them 25 minutes to get to in less then half a paragraph

people @ me with questions for them

it's very pedantic

It’s boring as hell

another point

Guns are good

I don’t why pius hasn’t brung up the bubble at all in his argument

The bubble?

*bible

Oh

because he's not arguing for the Christian God

This is the problem with trying to scientifically prove that there is God. He is using elaborate words to try to convince someone that doesn’t believe in God

Because theyre talking about proofs for any god

@Theo they've chosen not to debate the character of God at all

he's arguing merely for the God of the gaps argument

Conception in the mental sense is understanding; imagining is creation.

@Spartan322 which technially wins the debate. but is a very pendatic arguement

God exists but not in this terrible way that he is trying to prove.

and doesn't actually say anything

It doesnt

by a technical sense it kind of works, but it means nothing

Oh lol I had them both on Mute. Been here for 10minutes wondering tf going on lmao.

lol

If you accept the premise that something can be infinite, you can just make the universe your infinite. Either that or you have turtles all the way down

How would you prove God is real @lanceleader

An intellectual shouldn’t try to explain God. Never let another man teach you.

You can't debate over.

Thanks power range.r

well I mean it could. it just means that 'god' aka the first mover or contingency is very tiny

tbf arguing for God from the empirical realm won't work because faith is not about empiricism

yeah to be honest I think a better argument is to take God's existence for granted, and argue his character

And so tiny that it practically doesn't matter

If you're willing to modify god to mean anything that could be considered "the first" or an infinite, sure. But then you've said nothing

and without knowing his character makes it double pointless

since that is far more releveant to the actions of day to day lives

anyone even have a question? I don't, this is better left as a discussion and anything I ask will be out of scope

plus it'll just be leading the discussion later

this was cool

I rationalize god being real because the you can look in history and see that the events that happened in the Bible,actually happened

Your very existence is proof of God. God doesn’t have to be this bearded man in the sky. He is a higher being than all of us.

All the unknown will remain a mystery forever because we simply cannot fathom such things. We are lesser beings than God so we can’t try to describe Him.

same. I just feel like Pius is arguing a very pendantic point and I am not read up on the minusca of metaphysics

@Myth
For Pius,
where is the bridge between the philisophical concept of God you've argued for and any ability to know his character?

I would never try to rationalize God or his character because 1) its futile 2) it won't help man actually incorporate faith

so anything I ask is going to irrelevent being more practically minded.

Sovereignty is that authority that does not recognize any other authority equal or superior to itself within it's domain

@Myth Why do you need to believe a God exists? What does it mean to you. Why do you need to convince others of you're beliefs.

ill bring you up next legalize

thats a question for Pius

@Myth you saw my text question?

yess spader ill bring it up

@Myth For both: What would change your mind about your belief about (a) God?

ok legalize

Down syndrome has entered the chat.

I Like frostys q

@Mongo Jongo damn you're not wrong

Is he talking. Should I rejoin the VC

ah

https://dlive.tv/nickjfuentes?wnt=go_live

now I understand why he said what he said

If you trying to be bored join

OK

changes nothing, but I can at least understand his perspective

@TheCompanyMan Try relaunching discord

That question is a whole can of worms way beyond the scope of the debate

ok will do

What was the question?

is it alright to ask how much experience does Pius have in arguments regarding Godship

Legendary

evidencial moralism doesn't exist

so fondboy's seeking on the subject is actually logically impossible to argue

First thing, never push God onto others...you can let them know but that’s it.

Citation needed, can't just say its true

you can't argue an objective evidence to morality without a divinity

which you can't argue towards in the first place

@myth For Pius, do you think that logic as an a priori has been definitively enough established?

Even if you had a divinity to argue from, you wouldn't be arguing for objective morality....

https://i.imgur.com/yiZeVQN.png o shit Gosar sending secret codes

It would just be subjective to the deity

There are objective morals though.

by divinity I'm not referring to a subject of the mind, by divinity I mean something that is beyond realms of reality and controls that reality

objective morals in 2019 good meme

How do you objectively measure those morals?

that's part of what I'm talking about

@lanceleader thats a whole realm of philsophical debate which does not yet have a definitive answer.

without an objective divinity to define an objective morality, you can't have either

I actually think I believe what @Fondboy position is on this. (Waits for the lightning bolt)

lol

what would that be Frasty

that's what I'm arguing about, which is the problem with asking the question about seeking a enpirical moral framework

Murder is an objective moral.

frosty

@lanceleader That doesn't really answer the question

@lanceleader true because it is by definition unlawful

I need some sort of proof, not words

No, I am not talking about laws. Not murdering is an objective moral.

If you say you want to debate someone on a topic it's up to that person to prove their position. Don't think that was achieved

All I got as an answer was it'sd true

Thought thatr why we are here to prove that

That either requires more explanation or doesnt make sense

tl;dr I believe it so you should as well; if you are a good human you do if not be gone with you.

Thats all I got outta this'

I suspect thats not a charitable interpretation of what was said. Call me crazy

That’s the problem with having preaching that tries to enforce belief. You can share the ideas of God and Christianity but you don’t have a right to force it on people. Those that will listen, will listen, and the others will go on not believing. You did your job by sharing the word.

Pius argued that you can only subtract 1 from the universe so far before you hit Ø; And Ø is God.
Honestly, @Fondboy, we were depending on you, and you failed us. Utterly. 😤

"we"

People were depending on anyone in this debate?

This is the clostest you will get to this question
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_oQkSh2lq8&t=50s

@Mandatory Carry im not sure why you were depending on me lol. I hope by viewing this people may see me as more honest

thump thump thump

Moral objectivity is based primarily in preservation and advancement. Empathy is an instinct and allows us to formulate order in a world full of things that seem cruel and chaotic. Divinity is an unnecessary factor, even if its contemplation yields transcendent works of art and philosophy.

I go door to door on the weekends converting heathens whats your addy legalize, i'll stop by with my bible .. lol

the problem is what is the point of man's existence in a reality that has no defintive purpose

@YokoHaloless Could you elaborate on that first sentence?

We can chat about it, you like hot coco

Circles have no corners either

What do you mean by "preservation and advancement"?

You just mean that's generally how we decide what moral principles we hold?

If I kill someone for their land, isn’t that for my advancement and preservation?