Welcome Troy Geri, Ballarat debate proponent

[Logic please]

Originally Posted by Protium

he he...

Loki you gotta get green

Originally Posted by Protium

Sorry Loki.. of course I meant Logic Please.

<thread derail>

Apologies, should have responded to this earlier. Y'know, Protium, I think you're right... might be time to do something about that. Will keep you informed

</thread derail>

[Logic please]

Oh, and welcome to the forum ADM and Ballarat, hope you enjoy the "upcoming debate" and discussions

[Troy Geri]

Originally Posted by Loki

Hi Troy.

I offered my definition in good faith as it performs three functions which a definition must to be of any use. Firstly is defines what a thing "is". Secondly it is meaningful, it ascribes a simple and self referential description of a thing. Thirdly it is falsifiable, a definition which is not simply falsifiable is subjective and open to interpretation (and doesn't actually define anything).

While I am happy to use a definition provided by yourself I will only do so if it meets those three requirements. At least some of your definition does not meet these simple requirements.


Ok so far.

This is not what your god is, but what you assert your god did. The debate title is "Does God Exist" so we really need a definition of what god is. If you want to specify a particular god then you will need to include that in your definition.

Ok

This is not what god is, but something you assert about your god.

This is not what god is, but something you assert about your god.

Ok

This is not what god is, but something you assert that your god does.

Ok

Ok, but are you sure you want to go there seeing as we just recently had a debate on this very topic?

So I'm afraid your definition is not acceptable to me as it is largely not a definition of what your god is. Care to try again, or would you like to go with mine?



Ok, shoot

Neither

Rubbish.

There are two common definitions of agnostic. The "weak" definition;



and the "strong" definition;



It is perfectly possible to be an agnostic atheist, just as it is perfectly possible to be an agnostic theist.

Rubbish.

Let me remind you of the definition of atheism used by the AFA in case you missed it on your way in;



Note that atheism is not claiming that "god does not exist", simply that there is no evidence to support the existence of gods.

I'd also like to point out the well known philosophical principal known as the "burden of proof";



and...



Do you believe Leprechauns exist Troy?

Rubbish

See above.

I do not claim that there is no god or gods, until you can provide a definition of your god which is meaningful and falsifiable i suggest the very concept of gods is meaningless.

You seem to think I have agreed to a debate and we have in fact started. Wrong. Untill we have agreed on a definition and a title I won't be debating you. If there is to be a debate it will occur in the debate sub-forum, a custom made arena provided at great expense by the AFA for encounters of the debating kind.


And do you really think ontology and the Kalam are actual arguments? Methinks you've been watching too many William Lane Craig videos.

See ya.

Hi Loki

I have no idea why you have started responding to the points I raised when subsequent to my post it was clearly raised by the moderators that this would indeed be moved to the debate forum and proceed there when and if a definition of terms was agreed upon (which they have not been agreed to). In fact we were both PM'd and as I had stated earlier I was not able to offer a further engagement with AFA until around Tue (so I've beat that by a day)

I am about to respond to the PM and get discussion on the topic, terms and definitions underway as instructed so I'm not sure why you are going outside that mechanism. Others have held off commenting on the thread to let the proper process unfold

If you looked at my response when the moderators first highlighted this you would see I already had agreed we should mocve to the debate forum so there was hardly a need to restate this fact, I had also agreed with the other comments made around process, so again why re-state it again

I will now send my response to the PM and proceed from there, so until this is formally underway I will not respond to your post, except to say the repitition of asserting rubbish is not a logical debating tactic..

I can easily counter your claims and will do so in the appropriate mechanism AFA has put in place to do this. My initial post was done prior to understanding the way it worked on AFA and this is pretty evident if you read through the thread and see how it has proceeded since this was pointed out. As I said earlier bring it on Loki and let's get our topic and definitions agreed on. In my PM I will express why I have great doubts over the definition you have offered to date, hopefully we can come to a resolution

Thanks

Troy

[Troy Geri]

Originally Posted by A Drunken Man

Hey Troy, Mathew here, a member of Ballarat atheists.
I am keen for some discussions online in order to hone our arguments, then perhaps in the future we can have some formal debates. Though all in the name of fun of course..
First of all, lets look at your definition of this god:


I would first like to tackle your assertion of the universe having a beginning, and that this god of yours can act in time, in order to create, yet you then claim he transcends time.


I answer, i dont know. I dont believe there is one, but i dont know for sure.



Luckily, you can be both an atheist, and an agnostic. I am an atheist in that i lack belief in a god or gods, but i am agnostic in that i dont claim to have absolute knowledge about this. it is a common mistake to think that the term agnostic applies simply to the question of god, whereas it actually deals with ones views regarding knowledge.



I look forward to the next post, and will make sure i dont jump the gun and start opposing these arguments until you have put them forward.

I guess for this first post i would just like to point out that one need not assert that there is no god in order to be an atheist, rather we just have to lack belief in such deities. With regards to the position of are there any gods, people dont fall into three neat little camps, theists, atheists and agnostics. Rather they are on a plane, with theism and atheism being on opposite ends of one axis, and gnostic and agnostic being on the top and bottom of a corresponding orthogonal axis.

I am an agnostic with regards to your god because i cant claim absolute knowledge (at least i think i cant).

And i am an atheist as i dont believe in any gods.

Hi Matthew, thanks for your post, nice to meet you. You raise some interesting points and I would be happy to respond, however I have a debate challenge at the moment from Loki and am trying to get this up and running via AFA's debate rules, once this works it's way through the due process I would be happy to come back and continue this discussion.

So I'll touch base again with you in due course. hope you have a great week.

Cheers Troy

[Troy Geri]

Originally Posted by Deanus-Maximus

There's more proof that aliens exist than god. By your "definition" of god below I fail to see how there could be any proof as "god exists independently of the universe" - if god isn't part of this universe how can it have a physical effect on it to produce any proof?


I've seen theists shift the goal posts around quite a bit, but out of the realm of tangible existence - that's putting your god into a place where proving it exists is impossible. Everything that exists does so as either matter or energy or a combination of both. Matter and energy only exist within space time. From here:
By this your god has no physical presence and yet you claim omnipresence. From here:
Further to that if god is omnipresent, it means it is present in all things. From the same link above
To any reasonable person that means god is present even at an atomic level. By that claim would it not be fair to say that everything that is made of atoms is god? To that effect, does that not mean that I, my computer, you, your computer or any other tangible object is god?

I think you have quite clearly defined that proof of existence of god doesn't exist by your own definition of your god. It's self contradictory and not something anyone here could rightly take seriously. I'm with Loki on this one - nice deconstruct btw.

Again, I could respond to this easily point by point but won't for now as this thread will be moved to the debate forum. Happy to come back to your points later

Thanks Troy

[Troy Geri]

Originally Posted by Protium

No debate has started. Agreement on the subject and rules has not happened.

If this is to go to the debate forum both parties must agree on the rules and the subject and PM me when they are ready to begin.

Hi Protium

Received your PM but don't seem to have any options from within the inbox to reply to your message? Once I'm able to do this I'll respond to your PM so we can proceed.. I'm really looking forward to this..

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Originally Posted by Troy Geri

Hi Protium

Received your PM but don't seem to have any options from within the inbox to reply to your message? Once I'm able to do this I'll respond to your PM so we can proceed.. I'm really looking forward to this..

Troy, can you see the "Reply" button (mentioned by Protium above) or even a text box right under the message? You can use any of those options to reply to private messages.

[Troy Geri]

Originally Posted by Protium

That's odd Troy.. it should all be working. Can you not see a button?

Strange - just came back to it and can now see a Reply and Forward button, they didn't seem to be there prior. All good, will send you a reply now.. Thanks. Understand the thread will not be moved - sorry a Freudian slip.. (don't correct me on that)..

[Troy Geri]

I've updated my profile to give everyone some more background, but here is an expanded bio below. If I don't immediately respond to any questions it is becuase I am making preparations for the upcoming debate in the Debate Forum with Loki

Seeing as though some people were so keen to know more about my background, here goes

I graduated from University of NSW in 1989 in Law & Arts with a distinction average..

I am currently working as a Senior Business Analyst / Data Architect with a major bank.

I have lived in Ballarat for just on two years prior to that I was born and bred in NSW

I had a long and interesting journey to the christian faith, for many years I researched many faiths and found no reasonable evidence for their claims, scientifically, prophetically, historically, logically or otherwise - that is - with the exception of the christian faith which I found to be fundamentally different to any other religious claims - in every single area of evidence. I am a deep thinker by nature hence my current position as a Senior BA, I have never accepted things purely on faith at all, I have always gone to great lengths to understand and critically analyse evidence and logic. Having said that there is an element of faith in many things, and science is no exception to this, however I don't agree with those who would simply claim, it must all be taken on faith alone. The conclusion I have reached as a Christian is that not only is it a reasonable faith but my Lord instructed me to always be prepared to give a "reason" for the faith I hold, not to blindly assert faith alone - and so I never have.

I have examined the evidence that would support a purely naturalistic explanation for the universe, life and matter and find them to be unconvincing, to the converse I have examined the claims that there is a creator who is eternal and who created and designed the universe and that He revealed Himself through the person of Jesus Christ, I find the evidence supporting this conclusion to be considerably more reasonable than the alternative propositiions and more soundly supported by the evidence.... Just so you all know where I am coming from.

Finally, I would state that I in fact believe there are relatively very few "true christians", when comparing those who would profess the christian faith with what is actually taught in the bible.. Many claim to be christians but the "evidence" of that profession is in many cases sadly absent, Jesus refers to these as those to whom He will say, "depart from me I never knew you". Just because someone claims to have salvation does not mean they do, a good tree cannot bear bad fruit and in the life of a true christian there is evidence of radical transformation. So for all those paedophile priests and others in similar vain who have committed atrocities in the name of religion, that's exactly it, they have done it in the name of religion, however if they were to stand before the Lord his response, would be, "depart from me I never knew you".

[Fearless]

Appreciate your efforts to be civil Troy which is more than I can say for most before you. And I do mean most.

I am glad you and Loki are giving the debate forum a go also.

I am sure even with this last post of yours another half dozen questions might pop up. It's in the culture here to ask questions, challenge positions and explore etc.

I hope the debate goes well for both parties. Loki is a great person to be up against.