6 months ago
Which side makes a better case?
avatar
17 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 6 months ago

    Well, it was fun anyways. A claim that morality starts within every human being is itself a claim of universal law

    • 6 months ago

      @nellyj_misesian I would like to take this topic with you me being in CON side. And also being an atheist I would love to debate with you on topics like "God doesn't exist", "Religion doesn't exist" etc

    • 6 months ago

      It is one of the funniest debate I've seen in qallout. @nellyj_misesian did a good job trying to destroy @sharkb8's "agnostic about everything" world view.

      • 6 months ago

        I only watched the first half hour, but it seemed like Con kept getting cut off. But I do get Daniel's point about how we know things as humans, but that a God would know more. That seems pretty obvious. If pro thinks otherwise, he's pretending he knows everything God knows. Either that, or he's exactly as limited as Daniel.

        • 6 months ago

          @phoenix I never said I know everything or implied it as to do so would be to claim to be God. I said God knows everything and He gives us knowledge about Him. Daniel claims he knows there are 2 types of knowledge while claiming nobody can know anything at all. Daniel is a solipsist, an absurd belief system- "I know that I cannot know."

        • 6 months ago

          @nellyj_misesian didn't he ask you that? He asked if you knew the infinite. You're just answering that you know "of" an infinite. So you have two options. If you know the infinite, then you are a god. If you don't know the infinite, then you are finite. And if you are finite, then you are limited to your senses. Those same senses that can be fooled by infinite things. Soooooooooo they're not trustworthy. You tried to weasel word it but it's not working.

        • 6 months ago

          @phoenix No, not it you base your worldview on the firm foundation of God's existence as creator and sustainer. The finite Can Know the infinite, who Is God, if God makes Himself known to the finite who He created in His Own Image instilling that ability in him. God gave us the ability to use infinite tools such as reason and logic. I can claim to know the Infinite without having infinite knowledge.

        • 6 months ago

          @nellyj_misesian yeah well that's dumb. you don't get to retroactively "have always known" things. You don't have faith in god when you're a baby. You learn to have faith if you want to have faith, and different people will have different faith or non-faith all over the world. It's not something inherent.

          So you choose your faith with information you get from your senses... which are finite. lol that's super obvious man. or you're a presup, which is even dumber. haha but if you chose this god through finite senses, that doesn't mean you magically all of a sudden have always had infallible senses that let you know things objectively and know that you're not in a simulation or a matrix world. Just because you choose Christianity doesn't mean you now know all the infinite things.

          And I mean I voted Con, but I don't think you got crushed though. Con didn't say much cuz you cut him off all the time, which helped you cuz not much was said about your side. But whatever. You have a nice life.

        • 6 months ago

          @phoenix yeah that's what I was trying to say. He's no different from anyone else because he's still drawing the same information with the same tools. He doesn't get to wave a magic wand and say "boom these finite tools are now infinite because I believe in God!"

          Finite beings are limited. I can reason things to the furthest degree possible as a human, but I can't claim to know things that are beyond capability. It would be like trying to answer who will win Jupiter's World Cup in the year 17 million. I don't know if Jupiter will have countries, or if there will be people, or if they will play soccer, or who will win, because I don't have access to any of that information. It doesn't do any good to dwell on the question because it doesn't help me. In the future I might be able to answer it but not right now. The same is true in regular life. I don't know that I can trust my senses, but it does me no good to worry about that. They're all I have. So I operate as if they were accurate, and so I can know things to the greatest degree possible with fallible tools. But at the end of the day I still used fallible tools. If we accept the authority of the tool, the conclusion will be correct, but we don't know if we can accept the authority of the tool.

        • 6 months ago

          @nellyj_misesian And good freaking grief I told you my position and it is NOT solipsism. It is existentialism rooted in a knowledge of the absurd, with strong agnosticism regarding greater knowledge, and weak agnosticism on lesser knowledge. The weak agnosticism is more of a caveat, where one would say "I know ____ leads to ____ (with the caveat that the senses are finite so there's always the possibility we're using inaccurate senses in the first place). I can know things according to lesser knowledge. I just don't claim to know things with 100% certainty.

      • 6 months ago

        Just listened to this again. This is a crappy debate. Neither of us said anything of value. I watch the video playback and it looks like I kept getting frustrated that Nelson would cut me off. As soon as Nelson refuses to engage with the limitation that both of us have as humans, or attempt to understand it's relevance to my point, we're just talking past each other.

        • 6 months ago

          @sharkb8 Except that throughout the entire debate you did exactly what my claim was: You Denied Truth, Reason and Knowledge in every way.

        • 6 months ago

          @nellyj_misesian No Nelson. I denied that humans have access to objective morality. Perhaps if you would have stopped playing with words and ignoring my answers, we could have talked about the limitations of the finite mind. But no matter how many times I tried to explain the limitations of a human mind (that both of us have to deal with) you would just interrupt with a straw man.