Here's why:

1. I have a resolution all lined up: "Resolved: God exists." I'll be the affirmative.

2. I have my the definition of God all lined up. I shall use the Westminster Confession of Faith:

I. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long- suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.


II. God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.
III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

3. I have a format all lined up: Three rounds, simultaneously posted on prearranged dates by a moderator. Namely Opening, Rebuttal, and Closing Statements. 1000 word upper limit on each post.

4. I have developed counterarguments to important parts of the anticipated negative case, namely: that terms like supernatural and immaterial are incoherent. These counterarguments shall be revealed at the time of the debate, to whosoever engages me. (If they turn out to be relevant, of course.)

5. I have a bullet-arrow-and-grenade-proof affirmative case, which shall be revealed at the time of the debate, to whosoever engages me.

6. I am vastly, vastly smarter than you.

I. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long- suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.

II. God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.
III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

6. I am vastly, vastly smarter than you.

I. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long- suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.

1. I have a resolution all lined up: "Resolved: God exists." I'll be the affirmative.

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Here's why:

1. I have a resolution all lined up: "Resolved: God exists." I'll be the affirmative.

2. I have my the definition of God all lined up. I shall use the Westminster Confession of Faith:

I. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long- suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.


II. God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.
III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

3. I have a format all lined up: Three rounds, simultaneously posted on prearranged dates by a moderator. Namely Opening, Rebuttal, and Closing Statements. 1000 word upper limit on each post.

4. I have developed counterarguments to important parts of the anticipated negative case, namely: that terms like supernatural and immaterial are incoherent. These counterarguments shall be revealed at the time of the debate, to whosoever engages me. (If they turn out to be relevant, of course.)

5. I have a bullet-arrow-and-grenade-proof affirmative case, which shall be revealed at the time of the debate, to whosoever engages me.

6. I am vastly, vastly smarter than you.

Ooooooh...a challenge that ends(6.) with a bold assertion to get us crafty atheists off our couches.

Presupper

1) I've never actually met anyone who can presup as well as you.

(And I've met thousands upon thousands of xians, take as a compliment)

2) Westminster will get you virtually nowhere.

3) Your counterarguments must be more than just relevant.

4) If I had the time, I'd take your "challenge"

5) I seriously doubt you are smarter than every atheist at RRS.

6) Good luck, IMO you will need it.

Presuppositionalist wrote:

6. I am vastly, vastly smarter than you.

Proverbs 29:23 A man's pride shall bring him low: but honour shall uphold the humble in spirit.

Even if you are right, your attitude does little to endear me to christians

Ooooooh...a challenge that ends(6.) with a bold assertion to get us crafty atheists off our couches.

Presupper

1) I've never actually met anyone who can presup as well as you.

(And I've met thousands upon thousands of xians, take as a compliment)

2) Westminster will get you virtually nowhere.

3) Your counterarguments must be more than just relevant.

4) If I had the time, I'd take your "challenge"

5) I seriously doubt you are smarter than every atheist at RRS.

6) Good luck, IMO you will need it.

I didn't say I was smarter than every atheist at RRS. I said I was smarter than *you*, the person reading the post. The really smart atheists here won't even bother trying, so I'm not addressing them.

Quote:

1. I have a resolution all lined up: "Resolved: God exists." I'll be the affirmative.

Before we can even hope to begin, you need to clarify your definition.  I don't debate without agreed upon definitions of terms.  So, given this statement:  "I have my the definition of God all lined up. I shall use the Westminster Confession of Faith:" I have a few problems which must be cleared up before I know if you even have a coherent resolution.

1. Explain in detail the exact meaning of "living" you wish to use for God.  The word, "life" refers to biological organisms which exhibit homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction.  In order to posit a "living" being which does not exhibit any or all of these qualities, you must give "life" a positive definition within a universe of discourse.  You have not yet done so.  Please remedy this situation so I know what you propose to prove.

2. The word "being" is philosophically problematic in your definition.  Existence is positively defined by its boundaries.  That is to say, a thing without limits is nonsensical and contradictory.  Please give an acceptable definition of "being" as it applies to an infinite being.

3. Infinite is problematic in your definition.  You have given no universe of discourse for your claim.  Without knowing what substance god(sic!) is made of, it is impossible to discuss the possibility of his "being"(sic!) encompassing an infinite amount of that substance.  Furthermore, as science has clearly demonstrated that the universe is not infinite in scope, we must be given an ontologically sound description of the space that "god" occupies.  If god does not occupy space/time in this universe, please provide a description of the place in this or any other universe which god occupies.  Any descriptions should be accompanied with in depth scientific explanations of how the existence of this place is justified. 

Furthermore, infinite causes omni paradoxes.  Is god infinite in all characteristics?  If this is so, please explain in detail how god avoids the axiom of identity.  For instance, if god simultaneously exhibits the qualities of being infinitely powerful and infinitely powerless, his existence is incoherent.  If, however, god is not either of those qualities, than he cannot be described as "infinite" in the traditional sense of the word.  Either reconcile this paradox or provide a new ontology for the word "infinite" that does not cause paradox.

4. "Perfection" is problematic in your definition.  Is this perfection self referential?  If so, then it ought to be impossible to verify this perfection, for lack of a scale.  If this perfection is referential, please provide a complete list of verifiable scales by which every aspect of his perfection is measurable.

5. The words, "Most pure spirit" are problematic.  What is spirit?  What measure of purity are you using?  Most pure in reference to what scale?

6. The word, "invisible" is problematic.  Is god always invisible?  If so, then he is limited by his invisibility, and not infinite in scope, as previously asserted.  Please rectify this apparent contradiction in your definition.

7. The assertion, "without body" is problematic.  Is god always without body?  if so, then he is limited by his lack of body.  If God is not matter, nor is he energy, he must be something.  What substance is he made of, and how is it possible for this substance to both A) compose a coherent existence and B) not have "body," which I am taking to mean a discrete and cohesive set of parameters within the heretofor undescribed paradigm of this undescribed alternative to space/time?  Please provide a coherent ontology for the word, "body" such that it is applicable to your description.

8. The assertion, "without parts" is problematic.  Am I to assume that you wish to assert that your God is the god of the christian bible?  If so, please reconcile the contradiction inherent in the trinity, which asserts discreet existences as the father, son and holy spirit.  If these cannot be described as parts, we will need a new ontology for parts which necessarily excludes creatures such as god.  Please provide this ontology.

9. The assertion, without passions" is problematic.  If god is limited by his lack of passion, then he is not infinite.  If god is not moved by emotion, does not have material limits, and does not occupy space/time in the normal way, please incorporate your answers from the previous 8 questions into a cohesive description of how and why god is moved to action in any way, given the inherent contradiction in the concept of infinite beings being able to "do" anything.  In other words, if god is truly infinite, then everything is already done.  If this is true, then god is limited by the fact of his own infinite existence, and is not truly infinite.  Please provide a coherent definition of "passion" which fits into your description.

10. The word, "immutable" is problematic.  The traditional definition is, "not subject to change."  If this is so, then god is limited by his inability to change, and is therefore not infinite.  Furthermore, immutability necessitates the inability to control actions in any way when combined with the quality of infinite knowledge.  Please resolve this paradox by providing a definition for "immutable" which fits coherently in your definition.

11. The word, "immense" is problematic.  The definition of immense can either be, "boundless" or "very big."  If boundless, then it is a repetition of the claim "infinite" and suffers all the problems inherent in that word.  If it means very big, that implies limits to his size, and is contradictory to your previous claim.  Please clarify.

12. The word, "eternal" is problematic.  Life, as we know it, is based on material processes, and due to the finite distribution of matter and energy in the universe, cannot be eternal in the traditional sense.  Please provide either a new definition of eternal which does not conflict with this observation, or describe in detail the derivation of the observation that god's existence can defy these limits.  (I'm sure this will be obvious once you've successfully explained what god is made of, but I must be thorough and point this out while we're agreeing on definitions.)

13. The word, "incomprehensible" is problematic.  You have described this being in great (if incoherent) detail.  Please reconcile the obvious paradox.  Do you know anything at all about god?  If so, he is not incomprehensible.  If not, why are we talking?

14. The word, "almighty" appears to be included in "infinite" and so suffers the same problems.  Please explain the scale of "might" as it can refer to many measures, including physical strength, mental acuity, and many other qualities.

15. The phrase, "most wise" is problematic.  Please define wisdom such that it is compatible with possession of all knowledge, which negates the traditional understanding of the word "wise," namely, possessing the ability to make sound decisions.  The concept of decision making is incompatible with all knowledge, since all knowledge includes knowledge of all future actions, and this renders the term "decision" meaningless.

16. The phrase, "most holy" is problematic.  Please define "holy" coherently.

17. The phrase, "most free" is problematic in light of your claim of infinite nature.  Please provide a definition of free that is not contradictory.

18. The phrase, "most absolute" is problematic in light of your claim of infinite nature.  Please provide a definition of "absolute" that is not contradictory.

19. The word, "working" is problematic given the aforementioned contradictions inherent in the concept of decision making.  Is god an automatic process?  If so, he cannot be most free.   Please provide a definition of working that avoids this contradiction.

20. The phrase, "all things" is problematic.  If god works all things, then that includes controlling every aspect of material existence, which includes the sum of all life processes, including thought.  This would seem to indicate that humans have no control over any aspect of their existence.  Is this the case?  If not, please clarify the meaning of "all things."

21. The phrase, "to the counsel" is problematic.  If god is infinite, the concept of counsel is meaningless, as advice would necessarily be known to him prior to its being given and would either already conform to what he knows is going to happen anyway, or wouldn't, in which case it would be false.  Does god tell himself false things?  If not, why does he advise himself on how to act when action is clearly paradoxical for an infinite being who is bound by his own nature?

22. The phrase, "His own immutable and most righteous will" is problematic.  Please rectify the paradox of immutability and complete freedom in your definition.  Please define righteous.

23. Please define "glory"

24. Please define "loving" as it applies to a being without passion.

25. Please define "gracious" as it applies to a being without passion.

26. Please define "merciful" as it applies to a being without passion.  Furthermore, please explain the apparent inconsistency inherent in a being capable of mercy who has been described as infinite.  Is god infinitely merciful?  If so, how can god ever execute justice?  If not, then why has he been described as infinite?  Please reconcile this contradiction in your definition.

27. Please define "long suffering" as it applies to a being who knows the outcome of every action.

28. Please define "abundant" as it applies to an infinite being.  Abundant implies limits according to the standard definition.

29. Please define "goodness" as it applies to a being who is apparently without external reference.

30. Please define "truth" as it applies to a being for which there is no possibility of falsehood, and resolve the apparent contradiction with your description of god as infinite.

31. Please define "forgive" as it applies to a being who knows the outcome of all actions prior to their existence.  In the traditional meaning of forgiveness, a change has occurred in the forgiver, yet god has been defined as immutable.

32. Please define iniquity.  As defined, god is controlling all matter and energy in the universe, and so is responsible for all actions.  If he is all good, iniquity should be impossible.  Please resolve this paradox by clarifying your definitions.

33. Likewise, please reconcile the apparent paradox inherent in the concept of transgression.

34. Define sin.

35. Please describe in detail how the concept of reward can have meaning in a system for which there is no possible deviance from design.

36. Please describe in detail how diligence can apply to a being who controls everything.

37. Please explain in detail how an immutable extension of an infinite being can "seek" anything.

38. Please explain the indication of sex inherent in the word "Him."  Male and female are descriptions given to sexually reproducing biological organisms.

39. Please reconcile the contradiction inherent in "most just" and "most merciful," which are mutually contradictory.

40. Please define "terrible" as it applies to an outcome that is controlled by god, who has been described as most good.

41. Please define "judgment" such that it is compatible with a being who has infinite knowledge.

42. Please define "hate" as it applies to a being without passion.

43. Please reconcile "hating" "sin" as it applies to an infinite being.

44. Please reconcile this claim -- "who will by no means clear the guilty. " -- with this one: "merciful"

 

In the interest of brevity, I'll refrain from asking for clarifications on paragraph two until paragraph one is coherently defined.  Perhaps the reconciliation of these questions will shed light on the apparent problems with the rest of your claim.

 

Again, it is impossible for me to debate something that is incoherently defined, so please make all due haste to provide me with a coherent definition of god, such that I know what you wish to propose as existing.

 

In other words: "If I can't see it, it's not there."

Let me ask you something: isn't it just possible that we could show that a thing has a property indirectly, without actually observing the property? Like we can gather good reasons to believe that the sun is made of hydrogen, without actually travelling to the sun and scooping up a sample?

D-cubed wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

15. The phrase, "most wise" is problematic.  Please define wisdom such that it is compatible with possession of all knowledge, which negates the traditional understanding of the word "wise," namely, possessing the ability to make sound decisions.  The concept of decision making is incompatible with all knowledge, since all knowledge includes knowledge of all future actions, and this renders the term "decision" meaningless.

Omniscience itself disproves an omniscient god.  For the person making the claim that someone is omniscient, or in this case, most wise, must be more wise or more knowing to know that someone all-knowing truly does have knowledge of all things. 

Therefore Presuppositionalist is arguing that he is the most wise or omniscient.  As a result, in order to disprove his argument one has only to disprove that Presuppositionalist is all-knowing and the debate is over (again).

In other words: "If I can't see it, it's not there."

Let me ask you something: isn't it just possible that we could show that a thing has a property indirectly, without actually observing the property? Like we can gather good reasons to believe that the sun is made of hydrogen, without actually travelling to the sun and scooping up a sample?

I will do this when I have more spare time. I think everyone here can see why that's necessary.

Visual_Paradox wrote:

Love is a passion. God is a spirit without passion. God is a spirit without love. Contradiction with the definition of God as a spirit with love. Therefore, God does not exist.

Are you accepting? Well? I'll gladly slap that puerile argument around for a few rounds.

Quote:

1. I have a resolution all lined up: "Resolved: God exists." I'll be the affirmative.

Before we can even hope to begin, you need to clarify your definition.  I don't debate without agreed upon definitions of terms.  So, given this statement:  "I have my the definition of God all lined up. I shall use the Westminster Confession of Faith:" I have a few problems which must be cleared up before I know if you even have a coherent resolution.

1. Explain in detail the exact meaning of "living" you wish to use for God.  The word, "life" refers to biological organisms which exhibit homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction.  In order to posit a "living" being which does not exhibit any or all of these qualities, you must give "life" a positive definition within a universe of discourse.  You have not yet done so.  Please remedy this situation so I know what you propose to prove.

2. The word "being" is philosophically problematic in your definition.  Existence is positively defined by its boundaries.  That is to say, a thing without limits is nonsensical and contradictory.  Please give an acceptable definition of "being" as it applies to an infinite being.

3. Infinite is problematic in your definition.  You have given no universe of discourse for your claim.  Without knowing what substance god(sic!) is made of, it is impossible to discuss the possibility of his "being"(sic!) encompassing an infinite amount of that substance.  Furthermore, as science has clearly demonstrated that the universe is not infinite in scope, we must be given an ontologically sound description of the space that "god" occupies.  If god does not occupy space/time in this universe, please provide a description of the place in this or any other universe which god occupies.  Any descriptions should be accompanied with in depth scientific explanations of how the existence of this place is justified. 

Furthermore, infinite causes omni paradoxes.  Is god infinite in all characteristics?  If this is so, please explain in detail how god avoids the axiom of identity.  For instance, if god simultaneously exhibits the qualities of being infinitely powerful and infinitely powerless, his existence is incoherent.  If, however, god is not either of those qualities, than he cannot be described as "infinite" in the traditional sense of the word.  Either reconcile this paradox or provide a new ontology for the word "infinite" that does not cause paradox.

4. "Perfection" is problematic in your definition.  Is this perfection self referential?  If so, then it ought to be impossible to verify this perfection, for lack of a scale.  If this perfection is referential, please provide a complete list of verifiable scales by which every aspect of his perfection is measurable.

5. The words, "Most pure spirit" are problematic.  What is spirit?  What measure of purity are you using?  Most pure in reference to what scale?

6. The word, "invisible" is problematic.  Is god always invisible?  If so, then he is limited by his invisibility, and not infinite in scope, as previously asserted.  Please rectify this apparent contradiction in your definition.

7. The assertion, "without body" is problematic.  Is god always without body?  if so, then he is limited by his lack of body.  If God is not matter, nor is he energy, he must be something.  What substance is he made of, and how is it possible for this substance to both A) compose a coherent existence and B) not have "body," which I am taking to mean a discrete and cohesive set of parameters within the heretofor undescribed paradigm of this undescribed alternative to space/time?  Please provide a coherent ontology for the word, "body" such that it is applicable to your description.

8. The assertion, "without parts" is problematic.  Am I to assume that you wish to assert that your God is the god of the christian bible?  If so, please reconcile the contradiction inherent in the trinity, which asserts discreet existences as the father, son and holy spirit.  If these cannot be described as parts, we will need a new ontology for parts which necessarily excludes creatures such as god.  Please provide this ontology.

9. The assertion, without passions" is problematic.  If god is limited by his lack of passion, then he is not infinite.  If god is not moved by emotion, does not have material limits, and does not occupy space/time in the normal way, please incorporate your answers from the previous 8 questions into a cohesive description of how and why god is moved to action in any way, given the inherent contradiction in the concept of infinite beings being able to "do" anything.  In other words, if god is truly infinite, then everything is already done.  If this is true, then god is limited by the fact of his own infinite existence, and is not truly infinite.  Please provide a coherent definition of "passion" which fits into your description.

10. The word, "immutable" is problematic.  The traditional definition is, "not subject to change."  If this is so, then god is limited by his inability to change, and is therefore not infinite.  Furthermore, immutability necessitates the inability to control actions in any way when combined with the quality of infinite knowledge.  Please resolve this paradox by providing a definition for "immutable" which fits coherently in your definition.

11. The word, "immense" is problematic.  The definition of immense can either be, "boundless" or "very big."  If boundless, then it is a repetition of the claim "infinite" and suffers all the problems inherent in that word.  If it means very big, that implies limits to his size, and is contradictory to your previous claim.  Please clarify.

12. The word, "eternal" is problematic.  Life, as we know it, is based on material processes, and due to the finite distribution of matter and energy in the universe, cannot be eternal in the traditional sense.  Please provide either a new definition of eternal which does not conflict with this observation, or describe in detail the derivation of the observation that god's existence can defy these limits.  (I'm sure this will be obvious once you've successfully explained what god is made of, but I must be thorough and point this out while we're agreeing on definitions.)

13. The word, "incomprehensible" is problematic.  You have described this being in great (if incoherent) detail.  Please reconcile the obvious paradox.  Do you know anything at all about god?  If so, he is not incomprehensible.  If not, why are we talking?

14. The word, "almighty" appears to be included in "infinite" and so suffers the same problems.  Please explain the scale of "might" as it can refer to many measures, including physical strength, mental acuity, and many other qualities.

15. The phrase, "most wise" is problematic.  Please define wisdom such that it is compatible with possession of all knowledge, which negates the traditional understanding of the word "wise," namely, possessing the ability to make sound decisions.  The concept of decision making is incompatible with all knowledge, since all knowledge includes knowledge of all future actions, and this renders the term "decision" meaningless.

16. The phrase, "most holy" is problematic.  Please define "holy" coherently.

17. The phrase, "most free" is problematic in light of your claim of infinite nature.  Please provide a definition of free that is not contradictory.

18. The phrase, "most absolute" is problematic in light of your claim of infinite nature.  Please provide a definition of "absolute" that is not contradictory.

19. The word, "working" is problematic given the aforementioned contradictions inherent in the concept of decision making.  Is god an automatic process?  If so, he cannot be most free.   Please provide a definition of working that avoids this contradiction.

20. The phrase, "all things" is problematic.  If god works all things, then that includes controlling every aspect of material existence, which includes the sum of all life processes, including thought.  This would seem to indicate that humans have no control over any aspect of their existence.  Is this the case?  If not, please clarify the meaning of "all things."

21. The phrase, "to the counsel" is problematic.  If god is infinite, the concept of counsel is meaningless, as advice would necessarily be known to him prior to its being given and would either already conform to what he knows is going to happen anyway, or wouldn't, in which case it would be false.  Does god tell himself false things?  If not, why does he advise himself on how to act when action is clearly paradoxical for an infinite being who is bound by his own nature?

22. The phrase, "His own immutable and most righteous will" is problematic.  Please rectify the paradox of immutability and complete freedom in your definition.  Please define righteous.

23. Please define "glory"

24. Please define "loving" as it applies to a being without passion.

25. Please define "gracious" as it applies to a being without passion.

26. Please define "merciful" as it applies to a being without passion.  Furthermore, please explain the apparent inconsistency inherent in a being capable of mercy who has been described as infinite.  Is god infinitely merciful?  If so, how can god ever execute justice?  If not, then why has he been described as infinite?  Please reconcile this contradiction in your definition.

27. Please define "long suffering" as it applies to a being who knows the outcome of every action.

28. Please define "abundant" as it applies to an infinite being.  Abundant implies limits according to the standard definition.

29. Please define "goodness" as it applies to a being who is apparently without external reference.

30. Please define "truth" as it applies to a being for which there is no possibility of falsehood, and resolve the apparent contradiction with your description of god as infinite.

31. Please define "forgive" as it applies to a being who knows the outcome of all actions prior to their existence.  In the traditional meaning of forgiveness, a change has occurred in the forgiver, yet god has been defined as immutable.

32. Please define iniquity.  As defined, god is controlling all matter and energy in the universe, and so is responsible for all actions.  If he is all good, iniquity should be impossible.  Please resolve this paradox by clarifying your definitions.

33. Likewise, please reconcile the apparent paradox inherent in the concept of transgression.

34. Define sin.

35. Please describe in detail how the concept of reward can have meaning in a system for which there is no possible deviance from design.

36. Please describe in detail how diligence can apply to a being who controls everything.

37. Please explain in detail how an immutable extension of an infinite being can "seek" anything.

38. Please explain the indication of sex inherent in the word "Him."  Male and female are descriptions given to sexually reproducing biological organisms.

39. Please reconcile the contradiction inherent in "most just" and "most merciful," which are mutually contradictory.

40. Please define "terrible" as it applies to an outcome that is controlled by god, who has been described as most good.

41. Please define "judgment" such that it is compatible with a being who has infinite knowledge.

42. Please define "hate" as it applies to a being without passion.

43. Please reconcile "hating" "sin" as it applies to an infinite being.

44. Please reconcile this claim -- "who will by no means clear the guilty. " -- with this one: "merciful"

 

In the interest of brevity, I'll refrain from asking for clarifications on paragraph two until paragraph one is coherently defined.  Perhaps the reconciliation of these questions will shed light on the apparent problems with the rest of your claim.

 

Again, it is impossible for me to debate something that is incoherently defined, so please make all due haste to provide me with a coherent definition of god, such that I know what you wish to propose as existing.

 

BMcD , "I AM, you have way too much fun w/those.  [smileys]      "

 -  They are my very fun friends, I want lots more smiley friends ! Come here all you little smileys, so adorable,   ..... no no, don't be afraid, I won't hurt you !

 

Have you watched the debates?  If so, don't you understand the arguments he used?  If so, why don't you just debate one of us?

 

In any case, if you aren't up to it, why don't you just link us some transcripts from his debates, and we'll critique them.  I, for one, am sick and tired of the same old arguments.  I'd love to hear something original.