melcharaz

Acts 11:25-26
25Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:

26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

I recommend not double entering or spacing between paragraphs. Makes it easier to read.

Also gives more space for arguementation or
Emphasis on topics/topic heading/arguementation highlights.

So trinitarian vs oneness or unitarian debate.

Yall will need more than 10k words to hash that out.

But scripture tells us the Holy Spirit made Jesus in the womb of mary luke 1:35

Also the elohim is a misnomer arguement only those ignorant of scripture make. Here is why. Isaiah 11:2 revelation 4:5

7 spirits of God, or 7 expressions/manifested form/behavior.

Cause it was by wisdom the world was made proverbs 8:22-31

Yet isaiah 44:24
Says he spread abroad the earth by himself.

Plurality of elohim is revelant to expression, not personhood.

Consider psalm 82:6 when he is referring to man, jesus comments on this for us. John 10:33-36

Hope this helps.

Sounds like a dialogue to convince someone of belief wrapped in a weird logic circuit based on feelings and false assertions.

Heck, just say i dont believe in the god you refer to, but i believe the god i refer to.

This is literally a 1 on the topic making rubric.
@kohai

I never hated you, i hate the lies you embrace.

"Belief in God doesnt require evidence to exist"

If you are referring to the belief to not have evidence? Then this is a truism. Not a debate.

But if you mean that God doesnt require evidence to exist as he is. there is the possibility of disagreement.

Like do we need to have evidence of his omniscience to require the concept of Yahweh? Then yes, otherwise its not Yahweh, but another god.

Just put that in description then?

And what do you mean by"anything to do with money"?

Need to change your descriptions or people will start making debate lose despite content because of rephrasing and reinterpreting rule.

Flash back!
https://www.debateart.com/debates/376-does-god-exist

Im not protestant. Your doctrine is false. I dont want to be friends with someone who would lead me away from scripture to embrace the catholics and their... history. With younger people.

By the way. Why is omnibenevolent asserted with God? Its shown in many places that he isnt all loving. He is love. But he said jacob have i loved and esau i have hated.

Im not intrested in your theology. You waste your words and reasoning on me. Take your catholic dogma elsewhere

I was and am baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I dont want to challenge cause of the description. I rephrase alot of stuff to make it understandable to myself.

But according to the bible, yes. Water baptism is necessary and does save us
John 3:3-7
1 peter 3:21

And the apostles baptised in Jesus name, not in trinitarian formula.
Acts 2:38
Acts 8:16
Acts 10:44-48
Acts 19:1-6
Acts 22:16 (name of the Lord is Jesus)

Do all in Jesus name colossians 3:17

I wish you defined intelligence in description. Some say that ai fails to meet intelligence definition as they define intelligence based on the ability to naturally adapt to their enviroment instinctively.

Prove it in the debate.

He literally could have won in r1 if he just said "all scripture is symbolic and i define rapture to not exist"

But instead he says it in r2 and r3

Anyone who attempted to vote instigator because i fussed at him about symbolism of scripture. In comments i said "opening statement" not round 3 or 4

He put forth no views of scripture, or definitions in his #1 or opening statement.
Otherwise i couldnt say "definitions are debatable"

Basically defintions and biblical views are fair game to contridict cause he didnt say.

Using a technicality someone could practice prayer and not have thoughts (in the sense of active concious thoughts)

This is a debate that only needs 1 example of it NOT doing so, for the premise to fail.

Id not vote.

I only vote tie because there isnt the 5 point voting system. Or a no vote option that goes on record.

I mean he rephrased alot of what instigator said, the rules were clear to "please quote exactly"

Everytime contender didnt quote exactly, he failed the rule.

On the contrast, instigator did the same thing.

I can give side by side comparison if you desire.

They also both rephrased each other pretty consistently, again, i can give side by side comparison.


Every time there is lack of direct quote, a rephrase of a quote, statement or arguement, or a reinterpretation of a quote, statement or arguement, that breaks the rule.

"Failure to comply with all this is an automatic forfeit."

They both failed to comply. So its assumed they both forfeit, therefore, tied vote.

If i present clear objective evidence of failure of both sides to meet the rules, then i can vote a tie. If not, then you undermine and disrespect the rules stated in description, and fundamentally interpret the debate based on your own rules.

I got this.
1:"what is the BoP these two debaters bore in this debate?" To prove by bible there is theistic evolution.
2:"Does it require extensive citing of scripture?"
Yes

3:Does it require providing a detailed explanation of evolutionary theory is?" Yes, as is compatible with scripture.
4:"They are clearly citing scripture. They are also citing non-biblical sources, but there is scripture in there, am I wrong?"
Not at all, they just gave no evidence the bible supports or rejects it with verses cited.
5:"And they are, at least to some degree, covering issues of what evolution is and addressing it directly with how well it holds up against those pieces of scripture, correct?"
Sure, they are both trying. But none of the verses is compatible.
6:"I get that there was discussion of days and time, but that wasn't literally all there was to this debate, right?"
You are correct, however, those 2 things i weighed on because of relevance to "evolution" which seems to be agreed upon.
7:"but there are clearly arguments on the topic that support the stated burdens in the description. They exist. Why aren't they sufficient to uphold those burdens?"
There are indeed arguments, arguements about days are the majority. Because they didnt utilize the scripture and definitions to support evolution as they agreed upon.
8:"Pro clearly defined what was theistic evolution in his book. Con clearly addressed that definition."
This is true, the definition was defined and agreed upon.
9:"Maybe these points were not sufficient to meet their BoP. Why not? Why focus on all the things you see as detracting from the debate and just declare it a wash on BoP?"
They were not, as scripture wasnt utilized to agree or disagree with evolution. It shows simply creation. Contender cited the verses involved and failed to prove there was evolution as define, instigator did not prove lack thereof by his arguements, he dismissed sources by darwin and focused on days and light. He asserted creation is perfect, not that it lacks evolution.


I end with this.

"Look, I’ve done research on this, and it looks like Darwin only added it to make his book sound less atheistic. The only creator for him was nature. If you’re using this to try to fit evolution into the Bible, you’re insane." So he denies darwins form of evolution that contender introduces and not only is unbiblical, its also never accepted by contender to be unaccepted.

"Natural selection" is the term Darwin applied, meaning that while God originated the creation of fishes, fowls, beasts, and man, which are all inter-related by a singular design structure, i.e., the DNA-based genome, that genome, within each species, is capable of natural modification/mutation generation to generation...


Note: "Based on their effects on fitness, mutations can be divided into three broad categories: the ‘good’ or advantageous that increase fitness, the ‘bad’ or deleterious that decrease it and the ‘indifferent’ or neutral that are not affected."[1]"

It is assumed instigator denies this evolution. Nor is it biblically supported.

If they agree on what bop is, i dont mind. But it should be stated clearly, not implied by lack of contesting.

I dont see that in this debate. I see rephrasing.

I understand now. I should have been clearer. The STANDARD of BoP should be in description. Does that clarify what i mean?

I didnt ignore your question. Your question was "And is there no room at all under your view for any debate of the definitions or BoP in such a debate?If there is not a specific BoP laid out in the description, do you consider that debate an automatic tie?"

And i said the bop is in the description. And yes, i do consider a lack of bop to be a tie.

And if the description is not bop, then what is? The OS? If its debatable when there is no bop in description, then how is my standard unjustified?

K. Ill wait then before doing it.

Not with a title so vague. I try to interpret title as well. But yes, i see bop as in description.

So if i put in what i just said, would you allow the vote?

Again. How do you weigh that they are taking it seriously? What proof do you have?

As far as i can tell the instigator is just doing ramblings based on feelings and philosophy. Would you rather i vote contender because he puts more effort into it? More effort into a debate founded on a lie?

"If you believe otherwise, point to specific arguments made that establish trolling behavior."

Sure.

Instigator says "My position is there is no such thing as police brutality."

Which is objectively false, he then does not give any sources to defend this, of there is an objectality to something, it is reasonable to expect imperical data.

Instead instigator asserts its a misnomer.
He then uses a proof by example fallacy. "That's another point. Many people say that they're something they're not even practicing to make themselves be that.

You can't be a practitioner without practicing really."

I will not dispute that contender put in more effort in an attempt to define the title, but ultimately i cannot weigh the seriousness of the whole debate because the contender takes it seriously in their efforts. The foundation is faulty, the whole building collapses, even if the pillars are steel.

All mal does after that is introduce silophism the likes of which jordan peterson would applaud and introduces philosophical ranting.


So are you sure i cant vote that this is NOT in good faith?