Please choose the topic...

My opponent seems to be completely confused. Though I have dismissed all his personifications of God, gave contrasting views on his statements on structure, and dismissed his heaven/hell argument as unarguable because the existence of hell was an ancient belief designed to explain the heavens with their limited knowledge, he somehow has been led to believe that "our beliefs are similar". Our beliefs are not similar at all- I simply do not empirically dismiss his personfications because I feel it is a personal choice to personify something I do not deny exists, ie. God. I did not say the structure of the universe IS God in the sense Con is understanding and explaining, rather it is OF God. The Universe itself cannot BE Ultimate Reality, though the Universe exists withing an Ultimate Reality that is undeniable. God/Ultimate Reality is not subordinate to the Universe itself, rather the Universe is the structure in which Ultimate Reality is contained. The structure is the creation, not the creator. The structure is OF the creator. My opponent says we should discuss what a heaven and a hell would be like. I contend that heaven is the Universe outside the atmosphere of Earth. From the moon, or from some far off planet, the Earth is also part of heaven or "the heavens". It is my belief that hell does not exist. Why, then, would I argue what it would be like? If I were to argue what OTHERS say it would be like, I would argue they say it's quite hot. Now, my opponent would have you believe we have no contradictory beliefs. I don't see how anyone would read my statements, and not see how they are contradictory to GS's expressed beliefs in this debate, other debates, comment sections of other debates, and even the comments section of this debate. For example: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted by GodSands 3 hours ago "My opponent claims that God is "a spiritual being with intelligence way beyond anything". I contend that both descriptions are either unknowable and/or limited to our understanding of levels of intelligence, and irrelevant to the existence of God." This is quite simply exsusable, ofcourse God will have all those present with Him as God is God. God made the universe. You would be stupid to agree with Pro here. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Apparently my opponent does, in fact, disagree with at least one point I have made. He contends that the reader must be stupid to agree with me, in effect calling ME stupid. Let's examine my statement. My opponent claims that God is a spiritual being with intelligence way beyond anything. -My opponent did in fact make that statement. I contend that both descriptions are either unknowable and/or limited to our understanding of levels of intelligence, and irrelevant to the existence of God -The description "God is a spiritual being" is unknowable if we do not have a concrete definition for what is a spiritual being. My opponent has claimed he does not have knowledge of what that truly means. My statement on the existence of God- that it/he/she is a proper name for Ultimate Reality- makes it irrelevant whether or not he is "spiritual". -The statement that "he has intelligence way beyond anything" is limited to our understanding of levels of intelligence. What does "way beyond anything" truly mean? What does it mean to have intelligence? If God is Ultimate Reality, isn't all intelligence possible in Reality contained within the Ultimate Reality? The statement, then, is also irrelevant to the existence of God. -Intelligence is measurable in animals, humans, and other created conscious beings. Intelligence is not measurable in the context of God because what some may consider intelligence, others may consider the laws of science, and others may, as a result, consider a lack of intelligence because a cold adherence to the laws of science may not meet their criteria for intelligence. This notion is supported by the fact that many people believe that the notion of "intelligent design" contradicts the notion of "random/spontaneous evolution". What some label as random and spontaneous, they also view as unintelligent, yet others believe evolution IS intelligent in design. Personally I do not view the creation of the entire universe in 6 days as "intelligent design", even if by some anomaly it turned out to be true. This, in my opinion, would be a completely UNINTELLIGENT design as it would mean the universe contains laws it violates with it's existence. Get it? I await my opponent's response...