The Instigator
SarcasticMethod
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
InnovativeEphemera
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

A god exists as defined by Pro, Take 3

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
InnovativeEphemera
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/26/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 613 times Debate No: 67551
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

SarcasticMethod

Con

My third debate on this topic.

In this debate, PRO will attempt to prove the existence of a god, as defined by them. I expect clear, rational arguments and unambiguous definitions. Round 1 will be used for the definition of the word 'god', and of other definitions that may be useful. Round 2 will be for setting one's preliminary stance. Round 3, 4 and 5 will be used for rebuttal of one another's points. Correct English is preferable, but mistakes should not be grammar nazi'd.

To make this ABSOLUTELY CLEAR; I am an agnostic atheist. I know that many apologists like to ask their opponents about whether they are agnostic or atheist, which I consider to be something of a silly question. I am atheist because I do not believe in a god, and I am agnostic because I am not 100% certain of my stance. However, I can state, within reasonable doubt, that a god does not exist, which is why I am an agnostic atheist. I hope this is clear to you.

Empirical evidence and logical reasoning are the two tools that will be used in this debate. When using evidence, please provide sources, lest the claim is absolutely trivial. When using logical reasoning, please describe your deduction clearly.

BOP lies on Pro, and if you don't agree, then don't bother accepting this argument.
Cheers!
InnovativeEphemera

Pro

Thank you for the challenge. I accept.

Definition: God is a catalyst for events; e.g. big bang, evolution, etc.




Debate Round No. 1
SarcasticMethod

Con

I would like to address your definition of god as a catalyst of events. This definition is exceedingly vague to me. I would like that you provide additional explanation for your definition of god.

As my opening statement, I would like to say that this definition of your god seems unfalsifiable.

The first point here, that your god seems unfalsifiable, means that your god is defined in such a way that we cannot test his existence. This point will stand until you can show that your god has empirical evidence behind him. http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...

Secondly, in order to affirm the existence of such a god, one requires a proof, whether logical or empirical. This is meant to be addressed by the debate we are having.

Because I lack the burden of proof, I have no proofs of my own to make.

I wish you luck.
InnovativeEphemera

Pro

You are correct, the burden of proof lies with me. Here we go.

Case 1: An event (let's say for the sake of argument the Theory of Evolution), given assumed conformity to the traditional inear understanding of time and causality, would have had a 'beginning'. The current best hypothesis for this is abiogensis, which I think is likely correct and experiments like Urey-Miller etc are at least working in that direction.

In this case, abiogensis (or whichever process catalised the initial self-replecating molecule) I will define as 'God'.

Of course, we can make this simpler. Let us take any event that has a beginning and a cause.

The cause of the car engine to start is the arcing of the spark plugs which is caused by the turning of the key.
Thus, the turning of the key is the catalyst. The turning of the key is 'God'.

http://www.wikihow.com...
Debate Round No. 2
SarcasticMethod

Con

Ah, I see. Your plan is to provide such a nebulous, everyday definition of your god such that he cannot be disproved. Here, you define your god as the cause, or "catalyst" of all causal events. This is roughly about as reasonable as defining your god to be a toaster. You could easily win the debate by defining your god as a toaster, but what kind of strange debate would that be?

Your definition of god is such that I cannot honestly have a debate with you on the topic. Thank you for nothing.
InnovativeEphemera

Pro

No need to be rude. You said I could define it however I wanted.

You did not stipulate anything about the God, this was an exercise in justifying explanations. You never said anything about a specific God or any of the Abrahamic religions. In my worldview, I call God a non-supernatural initial event. I have given you proofs of how this works. It is now up to you to demonstrate that this isn't true.
Debate Round No. 3
SarcasticMethod

Con

In a way, you did teach me a lesson about giving my opponent that much free range, but you did so in a way that ruined a debate that I otherwise would have enjoyed having. Don't bother continuing to reply.
InnovativeEphemera

Pro

Correct. You are the insitgator and yet for all intents and purposes expected me to initiate the debate.

You were also caught off your script in the second round, beginning to argue points as if I were a theist without any account for the actual definition I gave you. Copy/paste or just your routine?

This debate, in my contrary opinion, does have a point, and the point is this:

You and I consider ourselves atheists. This means literally nothing except that we do not believe in an all-powerful intervening creator. That is all it means. Baiting theists into debates by coming from the angle that you'll defeat them regardless of their definition is part of the hostilty treadmill that we all (and especially on this site) seem to be stuck in. By all means, take on a thesit's challenge. By all means, challenge a theist. But don't do it in an underhanded way, it's bad for social cohesion and as it happens there are a lot of smart theists who are very important to this planet.

It also serves as a reminder that post-enlightenment 'New Atheists' can fall into the trap of thinking they're too big for their britches. Before posting a debate topic, first construct it and decide what direction you want to head in. Then pick it up with both hands, spin it around and look at it from a number of different angles. By far the most obvious trap for any instigator is uncareful definitions, and giving your opponent absolute control over them just doesn't make sense.

If you really want to try this debate, try "The Abrahamic God of the Bible Exists", or something similar. Personal definitions are of course a problem with this topic.
Debate Round No. 4
SarcasticMethod

Con

I see. Thank you for explaining this to me. I consider myself corrected.
InnovativeEphemera

Pro

You're a good sport, props.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Asburnu 2 years ago
Asburnu
Claiming to know the truth about the universe is a bold claim indeed. I would be interested to know your sources for that. The notion of a "silly" God intrigues me and I might consider joining such a religion.
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 2 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
Apologies for my misspelling of 'linear' in round two, hopefully it doesn't garble the sentence too much.
Posted by Beagle_hugs 2 years ago
Beagle_hugs
Even a an atheist, just for the fun of it I feel I could arbitrarily define a god that's existence could be proved without too much trouble. It wouldn't be anything like a typical god, though...so the exercise would be somewhat trivial.
Posted by SarcasticMethod 2 years ago
SarcasticMethod
I understand that, and it is in fact because God is so silly, that I want to debate people about it. I have a strong belief that everyone in the universe deserves the truth about the universe, and I want to spread it.
Posted by Asburnu 2 years ago
Asburnu
Kierkegaard tackled this in the 1800s and pretty much proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt that God's existence cannot be proven, giving all the logical reason's why. So, congratulations, you have already won. Keep in mind that to the faithful, no proof is required or that the definition of "proof" is very different from that of scientific method of logical reasoning, as it is "known" through a strong feeling. I have attempted this debate with many fundamentalists and one lady, in her 30s literally stuck her fingers in her ears and chanted, "La, la, la, I can't hear you, la, la, la, Jesus is Lord, la, la, la, I can't hear you..", until I walked away.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
SarcasticMethodInnovativeEphemeraTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded that Pro's claims were unfalsifilable, so arguments to Pro..
Vote Placed by Rubikx 2 years ago
Rubikx
SarcasticMethodInnovativeEphemeraTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: A bit of an odd debate since con sorta conceded the win to Pro.