A Civil Religious Debate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
- Find a debate you care about.
- Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
- Earn points and become a thought leader!
To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.
Be Yourself
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
ChuckHades
| Reward Points: | 3197 |
| Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 94% |
| Arguments: | 2771 |
| Debates: | 88 |
Joined:
This, it must include relevance to the supernatural to distinguish it from other ideologies, and most include relevance to well being to distinguish it from Deism.
You think the Thomistic argument from contingency is "preposterous"?
I wouldn't like to say until we clarify "immature notions". What would you mean by that?
Got a reason why?
Because I don't think any concept of God is correct, any concept that invokes the supernatural cannot be empirically proven, and thus doesn't interest me. Unless the true concept of God is natural, which defeats the point of being God, all the different concepts can be disregarded simultaneously.
I see you took some inspiration from me here ;)
While it's not a position I take, it's certainly one that, if more famous, would have a large amount of followers. There are thousands of gods in history, and an infinite number of combinations. So when we say "God", how do we know we are correct in our usage?
About Me
"I still think it's 1975, I like David Bowie and I shave with Occams Razor. That's about it really..."
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here
