Message from @Holmes10
Discord ID: 644325720453283870
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