Woops, I was going to demonstrate that your ontological argument wasn't sound, but this challenge is to find a logical contradiction. My mistake, I should have read that more closely. brb lol xD

Alrighty, lets play.

Is the linked debate fair game? If so, I would like to start with making sure I use your definitions for my questions. I need the following words defined as you use them in your debate description.

Worship

Non-existent

Being

God(s)

Appropriately

Existence

Truths

Know

What about when you jump and it takes you to a conversation between you and the person you jumped to? Sometimes I have received a message from the person shortly after, other times I never get anything or don't even know the person in a way that would lead them to message me.

I think it has a lot to do with nostalgia. I have many fond memories of reading from books, most take place at night as I tried to position my gameboy light attachment to light the pages. Even as enamored with technology as I am, I still prefer a physical book.

I have similar nostalgia for cartridge games, something today's children will likely not understand due to the increasing popularity of just downloading games straight to your consoles. The is a gaming bar I go to that has a Super Nintendo, I know the feeling you are talking about, I had it when I requested one of my favorite games and they brought out the original cartridge version of if, downloading it to my 3DS would never give me that feeling.

Not really sure why I replied, I usually don't unless to dispute. I guess I want people to understand that your statement is accurate.

I believe it was because he was male, but there is no way for me to demonstrate it. The problem in my uneducated opinion would have been having two mothers. While my one fills an important role, the second wouldn't have filled my father's because the reason I was comfortable talking to him about, for a lack of better terminology, "guy things" was because he is a straight male. Again, I am only speaking from my own experience, had I not had a male figure in my life I may have felt differently.

Which is why I asked what we are debating, diabetes has been demonstrated, aspartame poisoning hasn't. I need something to consider. What about the chemical composition of aspartame leads to the hypothesis that it is poisonous to humans?

I haven't found much justification that one is necessarily better than the other, I have but one thought on the topic. There are things I was only comfortable discussing with my father, because of this, I would conclude that it would be best for a child to have a parent of the same gender and possibly the same sexual orientation. With that said, life isn't perfect, people die, leave, or are just terrible parents and I have no objection to one or more adults of any orientation to parent children.

I meant to say it has never been confirmed medically that aspartame is in fact poisonous.

Okay, if not demonstrated by medical science, in what way has it been demonstrated to be poisonous to humans or other organisms genetically or chemically similar to humans?

Aspartame is a cancerous chemical that is often found in our gum or soda's mostly diet. I know that scientists have fed aspartame to monkeys and within a few days the monkeys ended up dying.

Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

Aspartame poisoning: Has never been confirmed to be a dangerous poison to humans

I'm sorry, what are we debating exactly?

I prefer regular Coke

How would you convince them that humans do (share a common ancestor with modern primates)?

Alrighty then, these are the steps I would use to demonstrate humans and modern primates share a common ancestor.

First I would confirm that the person I'm speaking with has no objections to evolutionary theory. I would then confirm that they accept that evolution covers all change in "life" after abiogenesis. After confirming this I would confirm that they understand that all "life" that evolves from a single instance of abiogenesis would necessarily share a common ancestor.

This would leave only a single objection open to the person I am speaking with, "Can you demonstrate that both humans and modern primates evolved from a single instance of abiogenesis?". If asked this I could conclude that the person has accepted evolution by a means other than learning about it, and would suggest they study up a bit. I would also tell them that a nice collection of evidence for common decent can be found on Wikipedia.

Of course it's true!

Source: Debate description

Assume for the sake of argument that evolution has been demonstrated to be accurate and true.

Please define "universe" and "multiverse".

Universalism describes "what transpires" as a unified "whole" or "all", as a singularity. In doing that, assumption of a beginning and an end is necessarily involved.

This isn't what I asked for.

Therefore a universe, by definition, cannot be infinite.

I wouldn't know as you have yet to present a definition of universe.

Multiversalism proposes a multiplicity as opposed to a singularity and isn't necessarily restricted by "closed system" think.

Again, this isn't what I asked for.

I attempt to engage in discussions with you because you display a type of modern sudo-philosophical world view that has, in my observation, become increasingly popular. By having discussions with you, I intended to understand this view and locate what I hope is a single logical error for the purpose of easily correcting those I encounter in the future. Your insistence of making assumptions about my position, disregarding definitions, and refusing to stay on topic has made this an increasingly laborious activity, with no real progress to be made. On July first I will be happy to engage in further discussion with you, but up until that time I will spectate as others attempt to demonstrate your errors in logic. Hopefully at a later time we can have a productive conversation, but now is not that time.

Capitalism of the word 'god' is pretty common amongst English practitioners of monotheistic religions. This is not limited to the Abrahamic religions; another example is Sikhism. Writings such as 'The God Problem' (can't locate a link at the moment, may edit it in later) also capitalize it and use it generically rather than deal with specific individual gods from various mono or polytheistic religions. But as you said, it's not really relevant to the debate.

You have demonstrated your claim to my satisfaction. I concede my point that the word "god" being capitalized refers to the Christian god in all cases. I was incorrect, my apologizes.

What does alien mean if not 'life that did not arise on earth? Most, if not all religions assert their god(s) to be living, so wouldn't that make every god an alien?

I was unclear. I was attempting to distinguish between an alien and a supernatural entity. If there is no difference, or the two are not mutually exclusive, then I will concede that point for the sake of this discussion as I may be using a more restrictive definition of "alien" and it really isn't important to this discussion.

As for lack of worship... have you ever been to a comic convention? And for a more literal version...

If there are people who worship Superman, their concept of Superman is different than the original concept, as the creator of the original concept conveyed it as fictional. The altered concept of Superman may qualify as a god, but is a different concept from what it is based on.

As such, whenever two individuals who hold different concepts of 'god' are using the term, each is misunderstanding 'god' in terms of the other persons concept. The concept of 'god' as spoken by a Christian is fundamentally different from the concept of 'god' as spoken by an Atheist. Neither concept has to be incorrect for misunderstanding to take place.

Perhaps we have just had a misunderstanding. I'm not claiming that one person is unable to misunderstand another persons concept. My position is as follows:

For any given concept, there either is or isn't a manifestation in reality that matches that concept. Some concepts are developed based on manifestations in reality, and the concept changes based on our understanding of the manifestation. An example would be Earth, while once thought to be flat, we have since learned that our concept of Earth was misunderstood or incorrect, and have corrected it. Other concepts are not based on something that have been demonstrated to manifest in reality, these concepts cannot be a misunderstanding because the concept itself is self referential. An example would be Superman, the originator of that concept cannot be misunderstanding Superman, because his concept is correct by definition. Even if we discovered a manifestation in reality that is similar, but not exactly the same as the concept of Superman, the concept of Superman still wouldn't me a misunderstanding, because the concept of Superman is self referential.

I am objecting to the idea that "God" is misunderstood, because for any concept of "God" to be misunderstood, there must be a manifestation in reality that is being misunderstood, and as the concept of "God" is not based on a manifestation in reality, the concept is correct by definition. You can misunderstand my concept, but I cannot. If you understand my concept, it is impossible for any impute of information to demonstrate that my concept is a misunderstanding because my concept if correct by definition.

So like I can have a unicycle with infinite wheels?

Please define "universe" and "multiverse". I will address your other arguments after we clear this up.

Sigh... I was going to include a line about that we are not discussing physically attacking Hitler, but thought that might be patronizing.

Okay, what about your knowledge of Hitler leads you to doubt that he would listen to a logical argument? Or why you think attacking him personally would be more effective?

I doubt Hitler listened to logical arguments.

What brings you to that conclusion?

What if you were a jew. You would still just attack his belief?

It is always better to attack the belief, because beliefs strongly influence behavior. Regardless of Hitlers preconceived notions about me, the presentation of a logical argument is going to be more effective.

So I don't see the problem.

That's okay, I have no problem disagreeing. Srom was, wrongfully, feeling attacked when confronted with many counter arguments. Now Srom is actually being attacked and I'm here to support him because this debate is completely uncalled for.

I don't think you should hesitate figuratively attacking someone if they have a belief that can be very insulting or demeaning others. ...there are several people who've killed in the name of the bible, and in the name of the christian God. To name one extreme example - Hitler.

If confronted by Hitler I wouldn't attack him personally, I would attack his beliefs. This would lead to me having an complete understanding of them in order that I could point out the errors in logic. I believe this would be more effective in persuading him to change his beliefs.

First of all, I don't think I attacked anyone.

I believe the following would qualify as an attack, there is no need to bring Srom into this.

So thank you, Srom. Without your ridiculous belief

Second of all, that's a stupid statement.

You are welcome to disagree with me.

I like pets that I can mount on my shoulder. My cat does this and the only down side are his claws. I suspect this problem would also occur with lizards, plus, I prefer snakes because they function in a way I find interesting.

Attack the beliefs, not the person who holds them.

Capitalizing 'god' also does not always refer to the Christian God, but rather is a generalization when referring to various Gods as an individual entity for the sake of simplicity;

I would be happy to concede this point if you can demonstrate this claim, otherwise it isn't really relevant to this debate.

the context of my statements should have been sufficient to indicate that I was not speaking specifically regarding the Christian God.

I missed that, my apologies.

I'm going to drop 'deity' from the definition as it amounts to a tautology.

Agreed.

This definition is just as applicable to superman;

I'm not aware of Superman being worshiped, but if he was then I would agree he might qualify as a god, although by "superhuman" it may be referencing "supernatural", which Superman isn't, if I'm correct about him being an alien, and not supernatural.

it's not specific enough.

I would be happy to consider your alternative definition.

That is not a concept- this statement makes the assertion that the entity 'Robot-Hitler' exists, in respect to manifest reality.

This is exactly my point, whether something that matches the concept manifests in reality isn't part of the concept.

If 'Robot-Hitler' was known to exist, then the concept communicated by the term 'Robot-Hitler' would be quite different than the concept communicated should 'Robot-Hitler' be assumed to be a fictional character.

Agreed. Once something that matches a concept is shown to manifest in reality, the concept is then directly tied to that entity and any changes in the understanding of the entity are applied to the concept. When there is a concept that doesn't have anything matching it manifesting in reality, the concept can't be misunderstood because the concept is correct by definition.