Burden of Proof in God Debates

[Dre89]

Summary of the thread.

I would probably think that too if I had no education on the topic being discussed.

Alien- After seeing your initial posts in the thread, I probably would have -1'd you if we reveiwed you for DH admission. But after seeing you admit your mistake, being mature about it, and understanding you're new to this, I'll probably +1 you.

I advise you read the first post in the thread, that may clear some things up for you.

Ballin4death- Abything that exists without reason is SN. It's impossible to have a metaphysics without something fulfilling that criteria, because any ultimate or initial reality exists without reason. So even if nothing existed then nothingness would be SN because it would exist for no reason.

 

[ballin4life]

you haven't explained why everything needs a reason

 

[Theftz22]

you haven't explained why everything needs a reason

You won't defend the principle of sufficient reason. You won't.

Shoutout to Alexander Pruss.

 

[Alien Vision]

Alien- After seeing your initial posts in the thread, I probably would have -1'd you if we reveiwed you for DH admission. But after seeing you admit your mistake, being mature about it, and understanding you're new to this, I'll probably +1 you.

I advise you read the first post in the thread, that may clear some things up for you.

There is alot of words you use, aswell as other people, that I don't know how to properly use. Like, I am reading another language. Like, I have the ability to manifest it into where I can understand it, but all of these words create gaps for me that makes it harder for me to stay in a straight path with this debate.

Being a beginner as a debater, I was curious if you could exercise my knowledge on the terms we use for this debate? I know I could possibly hold the potential to debate my own ideas, but I do not have the neccessary tools to fill in those gaps to hold a solid standpoint.

Seriously, metaphysical?

I am able to understand this though:

But time is still a positive existence, in that time could potentially not exist. The only thing that needs no explanation is non being, but now that being exists, any non being that would exist would be a result of being, thus needing an explanation.

You used words I already know about, thus allowing me to grasp it whether it is a very deep concept or not. It's so much harder when it's a deep idea with words I don't know how to use. The dictionary uses more weird words to elaborate the definition of the word, thus I still cannot understand it.

It's not fair. I know I have the ideas, and the ability to establish my own debate, but I just don't have the bridges to connect to the rest of the mainland. .-.

 

[Dre89]

I'm happy to help you learn the terminology (at least for God debates anyway, that's really the only place I use technical terminology).

I can't explain it all at the moment, but I will gradually, and when I have time.