God, just by the very breadth of what such a being would be, is unreferenceable. This has a key impact for how we talk about God. It is like trying to paint a picture of the unknown it can't be done precisely because it is unknown. The very task is an impossibility, because we cannot imagine the un-referenceable. Now try to imagine an alien without reference. The alien we have imagined is a composite of various references. This though has reference: we have been exposed to things which are green, which are bipedal, which have heads, which have eyes, which are ovular, which have odd proportions. Perhaps you see a green biped with an ovular head and bulbous eyes. In order to have sensically communication rooted in propositions with sense (thoughts), those propositions must have some reference.
Our thoughts model, mentally, the reality we encounter isomorphically. The notion of thought as picture is particularly important here. My opponent must also erect his own case against the probability of God's existence. It is thus not enough to simply refute my arguments.
It is incumbent on me to show that God's existence is probable, and it is incumbent on my opponent to show that God's existence is not probable. By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms. If one side explicitly concedes or violates any of these terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other. If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. The time limit between replies is 72 hours. Hence religious texts and religious doctrines are irrelevant to the debate. Resolved: It is probable that God exists.įor the purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined broadly as to include the general 4'Os (omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being) who is the source of creation.) That is to say, I am not referring to any specific deity.
0 kommentar(er)
