The Instigator
draxxt
Pro (for)
Losing
32 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Con (against)
Winning
63 Points

An omnipresent God is an atheist.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,199 times Debate No: 3628
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (22)
Votes (25)

 

draxxt

Pro

My opponent may provide anything he wishes, I allow him first and last argument out of respect. The only thing I must do is clarify a few terms for this debate.

Omnipresent- everywhere all the time

the resolution implies the existence of a God with this characteristic, so don't tell me to "prove it", I'll make my case after my opponents opening argument, however I would like one question to be answered:

What is the smallest block of life, the minutest stone which lays the first foundation of life?
Kleptin

Con

Let me first answer your question:

An atom.

Now I'll respond to your argument. You state that I must accept omnipresence as an attribute of god. What other attributes must I also accept and why?

In addition, I do not need you to prove a god. I need you to prove why an omnipresent god is necessarily atheist.
Debate Round No. 1
draxxt

Pro

For the record, my first speech was written simply to set up a simple framework for the debate to prevent any semantics arguments or arguments of style, rather than actual philosophy.

"Now I'll respond to your argument. You state that I must accept omnipresence as an attribute of god. What other attributes must I also accept and why?"

The resolution is: "AN omnipresent God is an atheist."

The resolution does not say "God is an atheist." It is an omnipresent god. Therefore, there doesn't have to be any other attribute to said god. Most gods, in a wide spectrum of faith, are omnipresent:
(Just to list a few:
Christianity
Islam
Judaism
Pagaen
Wiccan.)

You may choose amongst any of these gods, and assume that they have some nonbelievers. (Atheists, other religions, nihilists etc.)

As you've defined, the smallest particle known to man is an atom and even further still, a god with omniprescence would exist within subatomic particles. Starting to get a picture?
What are all beings made of? Atoms. We are entirely constructed of atoms. If a god is omnipresent, he is everywhere and inside everything. We must assume that there are small cracks, as in stone, within atoms that god must be in. He must be in the particles that make up the atoms, and so, God makes up the majority of the atom. That being said, if he makes up the majority of every atom, and these atoms make up us, then God is us. We are God.

So now that we've shown that we ARE God, we must look back to what I stated above. There are atheists for any religion, disbelievers, so if there is one disbeliever ( a point you said that you would accept) then God, which we are, is an Atheist.

I don't believe anything else needs to be said, as it's clearly obvious which side to vote for. The logic is clear, vote Pro.

Thanks again,

FB
Kleptin

Con

You do understand that your entire argument here is based on nothing but semantics right?

Your argument:

God makes up the majority of everything.
God makes up the majority of us.
Therefore, we are God
Therefore, God is us.
A few of us are atheist
Therefore, God is atheist.

Problems:

1. The fact that something makes up the majority of something else does not mean that it then becomes its sole identity.

If I have a solution of 20% HCl acid, it is a solution of 20% HCl acid. By your definition, it would be water. Try drinking it and see what happens. After all, it's just water, and it's good for you, right?

2. Even if I granted you the first part, which I don't, since it was logically fallacious, the second part is a problem too. If we as a collective are God, it does not mean that God is us. The United States of America is a democratic republic. However, this does not mean that a democratic republic is The United States of America.

3. Let's assume that I suffer some sort of massive aneurysm and I grant you the first two. There's another problem. If we can give an attribute to a small part of something, that does not necessarily mean that it applies to the whole. My outermost epithelial cells are dead. By your logic, I am dead. By your definition, God is not only us, God is everything. This means that the group of "things" that can be atheist (humans) are insignificant compared to everything else in the universe. So no, just because people are atheist it does not mean that God is atheist. Even if all humans on earth were atheist, it wouldn't line up with your logic that God is atheist.

So no, not quite as clear as you thought, and you're very welcome for the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
*simple fact that you are
Posted by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
Rainbows are not red. Rainbows are not green. Rainbows are not red and green. Rainbows are, by definition, the culmination of many different colors.

Similarly, you defined God as a conglomerate. Simply designating a part of the conglomerate "atheist" does not prove your point.
================================================================

This is holds no ground for the simple fact that if you are attempting to change the overall perspective that pro is looking at it as!

The correct analogy to the situation....can be better shown with a population.

People are many different things.
-People are gay
-People are killers
-People are white
-People are black
-People are radicals

Although not everyone posesses these qualities, you can still make the statement true.

Clarify his side?
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
This doesn't even dignify a response. I've never seen a person fight so hard for a textbook example of a logical fallacy and absolutely refuse to accept objective explanations as to why he is wrong.

I'll let the rest of you fight this out. I'm going to argue in a debate where my opponent is serious.
Posted by Muhafidh 9 years ago
Muhafidh
Great philosophy. However, I think the logic hits a roadblock if everything in the universe is God manifest, but God's existence transcends everything in the universe. Therefore, we are manifestations of God, but not God per se, as all of God is not the same as part of God, and even if we ganged up with the entire universe and proclaimed our collective self "God," the fact that God transcends the universe would still make only God really God. We would still be limited to the universe. Moreover, if we assume that God is omniscient, then the fact that most of us are either honestly stupid morons or self-proclaimed know-it-alls who are secretly stupid morons is proof enough that we are not God. Even Nietzsche was not God, even though he thought he was.
Posted by Geekis_Khan 9 years ago
Geekis_Khan
And the paint analogy doesn't work. The red paint is assimilated. It is yellow, not red.

And even if you want to accept that God is not just present in everything, but an actual part of everything, nothing is proved by this. For example, I am part of the Democratic Party. I am not the Democratic Party.

The only logical response is to vote CON. Why? because the PRO is wrong.
Posted by Geekis_Khan 9 years ago
Geekis_Khan
Now it isn't logical to vote PRO. At all. Why? God being present in everything does not make God everything.

I am in a house. I am not a house.

You at no point proved that God is actually part of the Atheist in question.

Again:

Worst. Atheist. Argument. Ever.
Posted by draxxt 9 years ago
draxxt
Precisely. Nice analogy. I say the only logical response is to vote Pro and I don't mean that as a means of bettering my score, my logic was not refuted properly by my opponent and I believe I produced a better case.
Posted by Ironduke 9 years ago
Ironduke
Woops, I get it.

Just because yellow paint has some red pigment in it, Does that make the paint red, in part. it is still yellow.

Same with God.
Posted by Ironduke 9 years ago
Ironduke
Question-How is God made of atheists???
Posted by draxxt 9 years ago
draxxt
God doesn't disbelieve himself, he's just made of atheists, in part, therefore he is an atheist!
25 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
draxxtKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
draxxtKleptinTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by draxxt 8 years ago
draxxt
draxxtKleptinTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
draxxtKleptinTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
draxxtKleptinTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
draxxtKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by jam34 9 years ago
jam34
draxxtKleptinTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by MaxHayslip 9 years ago
MaxHayslip
draxxtKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 9 years ago
Jamcke
draxxtKleptinTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by birdpiercefan3334 9 years ago
birdpiercefan3334
draxxtKleptinTied
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