The Instigator
BrainofanIndividual
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jay-D
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

A monotheistic God doesn't exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Jay-D
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 719 times Debate No: 41530
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

BrainofanIndividual

Pro

(Subsequent)Presentation(s):

Time & Definition Argument
I) God exists outside of time
II) He had no "time" to create the universe
III) By definition, he doesn't exist
It's like asking for directions to the edge of our planet - - There is no edge; It's a sphere. Trying to do so would be a futile exercise.

Definition Argument
I) We define rule as having control over someone or something
II) God does not have control over Earth.
III) By definition, God doesn't exist.
Jay-D

Con

I graciously accept my opponent's challenge. I could not have asked for a better and "hotter" topic for my debut. I hope to have a great debate.
My esteemed opponent, the Pro, seems to be quite well-adhering to definitions. Well, I would like to define my ground rules for this particular debate, which I will adhere to throughout the course of the forthcoming five rounds:
1. I am supporting the idea of "God" as the one, monotheistic God, as specified clearly in the debate topic. Polytheism is off-limits.
2. I am viewing God as the "creator" and "preserver" of the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
As per the above link, I am very well conforming to the monotheistic definition of God.
3. I shall NOT mention any fanatical or religious beings with names, such as Jehovah, Yahweh or Allah. I am not even saying God has a gender or form, but out of convention, I shall use the male pronoun to refer to God.

Now, to refute my opponent's arguments, each rebuttal concurring with his original statement:

Time & Definition argument

I) True enough. If God created the universe, he is obviously unaffected by time and its passage.

II) Indeed he didn't have time to create the universe. But Pro seems to forget to postulating that God exists outside of time, which he however thinks isn't possible. IT IS POSSIBLE. In Einstein's theory of general relativity and the concept of space-time, time is affected by space and gravitational fields.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Which means that at a certain limit of a gravitational field, one can manage to "transcend" time. This indeed occurs at the event horizon of a blackhole.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Whatever happens across an event horizon cannot be affected by the confines of space-time. This means that Pro's argument is fallacious - its not that God "did not have time". Its that whatever time God took was FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE TIME OF THIS DIMENSION.

III) So, God must exist if it is possible to go beyond time, and i just proved that it is. Ergo, I just corrected your definition, and by this one, God does exist.

The edge of the planet does exist, Mr. BrainofanIndividual. It is the peak of Mt. Everest :-) The earth isn't a perfect sphere, and hence an edge is always there.

Definition Argument

I) Once again, the first statement is true enough. But the succeeding ones aren't.

II) Who told you he doesn't have control of the earth? If he is a being capable of observing and creating a universe from beyond time, then he sure has enough energy to control the single planet called earth.

III) This time, you have a correct definition, but no real application. Your argument has been rendered moot.

I await my opponent's next set of arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
BrainofanIndividual

Pro

Time & Definition Argument

I and 2) So you have agreed that God exists outside of time and that God didn't have time to create the universe. Therefore, you have agreed that God didn't create the Universe. Therefore, by definition, God doesn't exist.

Time doesn't exist. Time is a phrase created by man. The sun and moon orbiting Earth isn't time. It is nothing but its nature.

We define a god as a powerful ruler of something, whom is worshipped by people. We define ruler as one who rules something or someone. We define rule as to have control over something or someone. He HAS NO "TIME" TO DO SO. Therefore, by definition, he doesn't exist.

Definitely. He could be eternal. He exists outside of time, thus making that possible. He just doesn't know much as we do. Plus, under a different definition.

3) You agree that time doesn't exist outside of space. So, saying that the time God took was fundamentally different from the time of this dimension is... odd. Do you believe in something else now?

Definition argument

1) You agree again. I don't understand the up-coming sentence. What are the following arguments? True? Or False?

2) Nobody. You agreed that he had no "time". He doesn't have "time" to do so.

3) So, are you saying that the monotheistic God didn't create the universe? Yes, because you have agreed with that.

I eagerly await Con's arguments. Otherwise, I thank Con for accepting this long-awaited, cosmological, particular debate.
Jay-D

Con

Excuse me, but apparently Pro doesn't understand the principles of quantum mechanics and relativity.
Let me dummy it down for you:
http://www.dummies.com...
This says that time dilation is a very definite and valid theory. TIME CAN BE BENT BY INCREASING GRAVITY. So can space. A black hole is literally A HOLE IN SPACE-TIME. Of course the principles of time are different across the event horizon of a black hole. Or is it that you don't understand even simple inference? If you don't, then you're wasting both our time.

1 and 2) I agreed that God didn't use "our" time to create the universe. Hello? When did I ever agree to him not creating the universe? Stop jumping to "by definition" every now and then. Its funny only for a short while, after which it becomes pathetic.

TIME DOESN'T EXIST? Oh my debatably-existent God! I have hardly ever seen such an ignorant person! Time is JUST A PHRASE? I would IMPLORE Pro to PLEASE (SERIOUSLY, PLEASE) read the following articles pertaining to relativity before posting his next argument. For your own sake, please don't turn yourself into a joke:
http://library.thinkquest.org...
http://curiosity.discovery.com...
For a more simplistic explanation, i'll post some well-known links:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I only agreed that God didn't "use" time to create the universe. Pro's "definition" of the word "definition" is definitively flawed. It's nothing more than an overuse and repetition.

And THE SUN ORBITS THE EARTH? WHO TOLD YOU THAT? I really hope that is a BIG typing error, otherwise i would advise you to pick up your fifth-grade science textbook and look at the SOLAR SYSTEM.
The moon orbits the earth. The earth orbits the sun. This is not exactly nature. It has a name. Once again, it's GRAVITY. Mr. Pro has some SERIOUS flaws in his scientific statements, and quite frankly, its disgraceful.
As goes for nature, that is what makes the sun, moon and earth rotate about their own axes. It is the conservation of angular momentum:
http://www.scientificamerican.com...
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...

3) What is so odd about this? Well, Pro believes that there is only one single, unaltered flow of time within the entire universe. NOW, THAT'S ODD. Do you not know that TIME FLOWS AT DIFFERENT RATES UNDER DIFFERENT GRAVITATIONAL FIELDS?
If your answer is still no, then it means you've neither read my previous arguments, nay, FACTS, properly, nor have you visited the links i provided just a few lines above. This is classic ignorance for someone who prefers to go "by definition".
If the answer is yes, however, then your time argument is finished. PERIOD.

Moving on, i would request you to read this very carefully:
You say that because God exists out of time, he has no time to rule? Well, once again, your definition is FLAWED. We define ruler as "a person exercising government or dominion". Check your dictionary, if you have one. And if you don't, google it.
To rule means to exercise authority, to GOVERN, and NOT TO CONTROL or dominate. This is different how, you ask?
To CONTROL is puppetry - a man will only do what God intends him to do. This is what you say a ruler does, and it isn't true.
To GOVERN is to inflict consequence - like karma, or law. You're free to defy it, but not to escape it. As you sow, so shall you reap. THIS is what a ruler does. That is what GOD does.

Definition argument

1) The upcoming sentence said your following arguments were false, of course. It's simple english; how could you not understand it? And even if you didn't (which would severely question your credibility), then am i not supposed to be saying that your arguments are false "by definition"? I expected you to understand at least that much.

2) I agreed that he didn't have "our" time. Meaning, he didn't do it ON EARTH. Time has a different nature and flow in OTHER gravitational fields. I am not going to state this again.

3) Once again, since i have disproved your previous arguments, your present statement has been rendered moot. I haven't agreed with anything you said. You're under the misconception that i have, because:
(i)Your definition of ruler is flawed.
(ii)You seem to have no idea about relativity, or if you do, you choose to ignore it.
(iii)Your definition of time and its flow is flawed.
(iv)You think that the SUN ORBITS THE EARTH(which is false to begin with), and you think it's because of nature. At the risk of sounding cliched, it's because of a force of nature called GRAVITY. So now, BY DEFINITION, you don't know anything about gravity, the solar system, time, and rulers.
(v)And of course, you either misread or simply ignored some of my rebuttals.

The time and definition arguments are over, Mr. Pro. I await some NEW arguments. Dwelling on a disproved argument could very well be conceived as undue fixation.
Debate Round No. 2
BrainofanIndividual

Pro

BrainofanIndividual forfeited this round.
Jay-D

Con

Well, this is disappointing conduct from my opponent. The debate is currently at an impasse, since I have conclusively disproved Pro's time & definition arguments, and he has not put forth any new arguments.
Since it is my opponent who is Pro as well as instigator of the debate, "by definition", I am not obliged to put forth new arguments. As such, an entire round has been wasted due to my opponent's actions.
I would advise voters to keep this in mind when awarding points for conduct.
I hope that Pro does not repeat this in the next round, and puts forth some new arguments for debate. I eagerly await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 3
BrainofanIndividual

Pro

"And THE SUN ORBITS THE EARTH? WHO TOLD YOU THAT? I really hope that is a BIG typing error, otherwise i would advise you to pick up your fifth-grade science textbook and look at the SOLAR SYSTEM.
The moon orbits the earth. The earth orbits the sun. This is not exactly nature. It has a name. Once again, it's GRAVITY. Mr. Pro has some SERIOUS flaws in his scientific statements, and quite frankly, its disgraceful.
As goes for nature, that is what makes the sun, moon and earth rotate about their own axes. It is the conservation of angular momentum:"

Yeah, it's only a big typing error. The earth does in fact orbit the moon and the sun... orbits... the moon LOLOLO

HORSIESHORSIESHORSIESHORSIESHORSIES

NIMANIMANIMANIMANIMANIMA
Jay-D

Con

In the words of Pro:
The earth does in fact orbit the moon and the sun... orbits... the moon

Where's your proof? You cannot simply say "in fact" and get away with it. What evidence do you have to support that premise? This is debate.org; we aren't hippies at a love-in.
Mr. Pro, if you don't provide any supporting evidence for such a heavily disputable hypothesis, then by definition, nobody is obliged to believe your statements.
Now, it's obvious that my opponent believes that the sun orbits the earth, and not only that, the earth orbits the moon! Maybe he's a time-travelling Catholic stalwart (although this would mean he SUPPORTS the idea of a monotheistic God) from the 16th century or earlier:
http://www.princeton.edu...
Or he could be just trolling me because he has no valid arguments left to present. Quite frankly, this is more disgraceful than round 3. Pro should definitely lose points for conduct.

Even so, I shall not stoop to my opponent's level. I'll refute even this argument of his.
http://www.vibrationdata.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
The laws of gravitation, and other well-established phenomena such as stellar parallax and doppler effect clearly explain that the moon orbits the earth, and the earth orbits the sun. This fact completely contradicts my opponent's statement, which is doubtless based on nothing more than crude observation from his naked eyes.
I wonder if Pro is older than 14... Oh, wait. He IS 14 years old. Well, at that age, ignorance is bliss, and no wonder he sees "HORSIESHORSIESHORSIESHORSIESHORSIES".

However, the fact that Pro continues to make such outrageously wrong statements even after I posted sources explaining gravitation shows poor consideration and complete ignorance of my arguments on his part.
What I find surprising is that someone who relies on nothing more than his eyes to believe that the sun & earth orbit the moon should say that God doesn't exist. My opponent is full of self-contradictions.

I would also like to point out that Pro's latest argument was, in no obvious way, relevant to the debate. I advise voters to take this into consideration when awarding points for arguments.
Anyways, now that even THIS argument has been disproved, I await Pro's closing statements and arguments(if any) for the fifth and final round. I also hope that Pro gives SOME respect to this debate and bows out gracefully.
Debate Round No. 4
BrainofanIndividual

Pro

[Content removed by moderator]
Jay-D

Con

Well, that is it.

Conclusion:
1. Pro's "definitions" were flawed to begin with, and yet he continued to fixate on them for additional rounds.
2. Pro has shown repeated ignorance of the principles of gravitation and relativity, as well as my arguments regarding the same. Hence, Pro should lose arguments.
3. Pro should lose conduct for obvious reasons. I may also like to point out that Pro forfeited an entire round.
4. Pro should lose spelling and grammar for usage of invalid words such as "HORSIESHORSIESHORSIESHORSIESHORSIES" and "NIMANIMANIMANIMANIMANIMA", as well as for usage of vulgar street slang.
5. Pro should lose sources for failing to provide a single external source. I have provided 12 different links from 8 different sources.

You did not win, Mr. Pro. That is yet to be decided by the voters. As much as I can start thanking Pro for instigating this debate, I cannot quite finish it, considering his recent behaviour.
The rest is up to the voters now. May the better debater win.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by legodude123 3 years ago
legodude123
Pro is disrespectful
Posted by legodude123 3 years ago
legodude123
How come people say god is not real and how come science proves all can someone answer please?
Posted by Jay-D 3 years ago
Jay-D
If there are in philosophical people reading this and you happen to have voting privileges, please vote on this one:
http://www.debate.org...
It's got only one vote, and it's from the same person who also manages Brainofanindividual's account, so I hope you'll understand my reasons. Currently, it's too close to call.
Posted by Jay-D 3 years ago
Jay-D
Of course. But the fact that these "statements" have remained unchanged for a very long time makes them qualitatively no different from those found anywhere else, and hence validating that the likeness and attributes of a god are what people make them out to be. What remains unchanged in this sort of premise is the original, canonical statement about the very basic, fundamental, single defining quality of God or a god, making my use of the statement in question ipso facto suitable and sound.
Posted by TetsuRiken 3 years ago
TetsuRiken
The problem with that stament is anyone can say anything about any god and believe it to be true and that alone makes any stament about any god unreliable.
Posted by Jay-D 3 years ago
Jay-D
I believe that wikipedia can be relied upon well enough when it comes to simple facts about well known things like relativity and God..
Posted by TetsuRiken 3 years ago
TetsuRiken
Wiki and Wikipedia are not good and reliable resources.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
BrainofanIndividualJay-DTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Although I don't agree with Cons stance on a monotheistic god. The facts of this debate are that Pro has displayed shocking behavior as well as bad grammar/spelling. Pro did not bother to respond to any arguments of Cons and generally had a tantrum, while Cons arguments were well thought out. I hope that Con does not quit DOD over the lack of respect in his first debate. Sources also go to Con, as they made sense.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
BrainofanIndividualJay-DTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: It seems pro's account got hacked in the middle of this... Conduct for making up quotes from con which con did not say (argument goes out the door on that as well), spelling for the "n*gga" bit in addition to many like it. The word pro was looking for, ends with an "er," now an "a."
Vote Placed by Matt_L 3 years ago
Matt_L
BrainofanIndividualJay-DTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro really fell apart...