Message from @Beemann

Discord ID: 644325316910776351


2019-11-13 23:54:34 UTC  

I've heard self causing one too many times.

2019-11-13 23:54:42 UTC  

Was confused for a moment lol

2019-11-13 23:54:48 UTC  

I'mma head out 🤗👌🏽😎

2019-11-13 23:54:52 UTC  

Peace homie

2019-11-13 23:55:02 UTC  

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

2019-11-13 23:55:04 UTC  
2019-11-13 23:55:09 UTC  

but it is an example of the problem

2019-11-13 23:55:19 UTC  
2019-11-13 23:55:55 UTC  

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

2019-11-13 23:56:01 UTC  

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

2019-11-13 23:56:03 UTC  

Bravo, good sir

2019-11-13 23:56:17 UTC  

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.

2019-11-13 23:56:44 UTC  

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

2019-11-13 23:56:52 UTC  

its a God of the gaps argument which is theortical

2019-11-13 23:57:02 UTC  

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

2019-11-13 23:57:15 UTC  

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

2019-11-13 23:57:46 UTC  

Yeah this conversation is pretty low T and dry.

2019-11-13 23:57:47 UTC  

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

2019-11-13 23:57:47 UTC  

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

2019-11-13 23:58:35 UTC  

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

2019-11-13 23:58:46 UTC  

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

2019-11-13 23:58:55 UTC  

oh I meant in the same way

2019-11-13 23:58:59 UTC  

because you have to define God existing first

2019-11-13 23:59:01 UTC  

not that he'd refuse

2019-11-13 23:59:09 UTC  

Oh ok

2019-11-13 23:59:25 UTC  

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

2019-11-13 23:59:34 UTC  

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

2019-11-13 23:59:43 UTC  

I will grant that.

2019-11-13 23:59:49 UTC  

It would likely be more interesting

2019-11-14 00:00:03 UTC  

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

2019-11-14 00:00:11 UTC  

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

2019-11-14 00:00:22 UTC  

^^

2019-11-14 00:00:41 UTC  

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

2019-11-14 00:00:51 UTC  

granted they still suck

2019-11-14 00:01:01 UTC  

what sort of evidence do you have in mind?

2019-11-14 00:01:45 UTC  

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

2019-11-14 00:01:56 UTC  
2019-11-14 00:02:02 UTC  

that's a churlish attempt in fuility

2019-11-14 00:02:11 UTC  

@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

2019-11-14 00:02:13 UTC  

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

2019-11-14 00:02:21 UTC  

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