I know the title is misleading
I’m having a debate over at the Atheist Foundation of Australia forums which is a classic example of sophistry and the Gish Gallop that the religious use in debates, at least this fellow can’t hide by picking and choosing the replies he makes to people on forums or blogs and has to deal with me in the limelight.
There has been no logic at all presented by Lion IRC for the affirmative, and appears the CLASSIC creationist/religionist approach of simply muddying the whole argument with half truths, word soup diatribes that don’t mean … well anything really that I can try and strain out of the mess. Since Lion IRC has chosen to stick to using jibes and ‘wit’, I’m going to rather just say the truth as I see it in the hope that this kicks him in the butt enough to respond to the actual debate, that’s me. I’ve been trying to be polite and on topic with no fluff out of some mis-placed respect for my opponent, but it is just not reciprocal, in fact from the start it has been totally disrespectful to myself, and the value I had put on him being able to at least put his position across and that he could actually defend it to some extent. how wrong I was. it’s like he hasn’t thought about the logic of his position AT ALL.
I think Lion IRC thinks this is a joke. Which isn’t so good since he is right out there in the limelight, representing his position on his core concepts of his god.
Maybe I was not too far wrong with the Gish Gallop, as he hasn’t in his first 2 large posts raised any real logic. There is plenty of big words, long sentences that meander around to appear as though something of importance, backed by ‘red references of note’, looping attempt at some kind of failed sophistry .. but nothing I have put forward in regard logic and actually approaching the topic of the debate. He seems to be winding slowly around trying to head in the direction of where he started, trying to argue that an omniscient god doesn’t have to know everything.
It’s like watching some bad actor playing Ceasar on stage giving some kinda speach, prancing around and it’s really hard to understand what they are saying as it’s heavy Shakespearean. But they think they are on top of the world. It’s kinda embaressing to be honest.
You can read the full debate here as it stands so far.
My basic argument that the theist Lion IRC has avoided :
1/ An omniscient being knows all future and past facts, including all possibilities and experiences any of those possibilities could have.
2/ This means these facts are unchangable as the omniscient being already knows that they would change it and to what, there is no way these facts were not known.
3/ The result is the existence of this being would be immutable, unchangable. This being would be powerless to change the future as it already knows what it would change, it knows EVERYTHING.
4/ The only way it could change the immutable knowledge it has of the future would to not be omniscient.
5/ But not being able to change the future, would mean that this being was not omnipotent.
check out some classic comments from Lion IRC during the debate :
Likewise, my case necessarily includes proofs that my opponent’s position is illogical
I’m still waiting on this, I’ve asked a few times now and he just avoids it like the plague.
When God says, “I don’t know what I am going to do tomorrow He is telling the truth.
Lion IRC clearly refuting his argument by defining his god as not knowing something. ie: what he is going to do tomorrow. a total contradiction.
How the hell can an Omnipotent Being NOT possess all knowledge?
My FAVOURITE
Lion IRC again showing that an Omnipotent god can’t do something. He refutes himself in one sentence, the pinnacle point that his post led up too.. a total contradiction.




