Hm, you're ridiculous.
When did I ever say I assert "god" has no incentive?
You jumped into the middle of a debate, arguing in the stead of an opponent who believed that God has no incentive. Therefore, it should be expected that you understand what opinion I'm arguing against before you suddenly use your own.
I mean, you do realize, that's fairly confusing on my part, yes? You reply in the middle of something you weren't replying to before, and you expect me to not continue on the same way I was arguing with my previous opponent?
That's like jumping into the middle of a normal conversation and then changing the subject, or at the very least, the direction.
I assert that humans only hope or have faith of what its incentive is, this or that.
Mainstream Christianity has faith in their deity because they believe he brings sense and order to a senseless and chaotic existence. If he had no incentive to do anything, he would be senseless, and therefore, he would contradict what mainstream Christianity believes.
You've got claims that it has this or that just as I have claims that one cannot know what the fuck it wants or its incentives, everything else is speculation.
Just because we cannot necessarily know what his desires are does not mean that he does not have them. It is not an opinion, but fact, that if he did not have them, he would be illogical, and if God is truly perfect as religion asserts, then he is not illogical.
You continue to claim "if it has no reason, no incentive, it is illogical", and I agree. However, what's your point with these statements? Or are you simply stating these for the record.
My point is that his incentive could be many things, including the supposition that he is actually vulnerable to damage or destruction, which is the point of this debate.
'Is God dead/mortal, supposing it exists/ed?' is the debate title.
I answered on the yes side, stating 'It would make sense if he was, because it could be a possible cause behind his incentive to do anything in the first place.'
Why would a god be chaotic versus what it created to be chaotic? Theres a difference.
Both of us are attempting to describe a god versus describing human beings, but aren't humans what we know more than this X, Y, Z god?
Are you stating god is illogical because chaos exists?
Well, I actually believe chaos and order and synonymous; two sides of the same coin. And I'm fairly certain a being that is a great creator of everything would understand this point of view, and likely believe it.
But there's also a difference between chaos and senselessness. You can actually explain chaos with math (which is why chaos is actually orderly). Senselessness is something without any true explanation or reason. But if God is supposedly perfect, then there would be sense to anything and everything he does, even if we cannot understand it ourselves.
Or are you stating you do not know for certain whether or not god is illogical, chaotic, logical, or peaceful?
Which is it? Or is it both?
I am stating that if an all-powerful creator of everything there ever was and will be exists, and assuming that this debate refers to 'God', as in the Christian deity, then both referring to the circumstances of his supposed existence while also referring to popular reasoning and belief behind his presence, he is in fact logical.
And, logically, if you do something unexpected (like creating anything and everything), you do it because you have a desire to do it, and if you have a desire to do something, it's because you have incentive to do it. Supposing he exists, therefore, then his incentive could be many things, including the possibility that, while he is infallible and omnipotent by our standards, he is not necessarily infallible and omnipotent by his own standards (because perfection is a paradox), and therefore his incentive to do anything may be that, on his own level of power, he is actually mortal, even if on our level, he is immortal.
