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?