The Instigator
radz
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
G-g-ghost
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Atheism Rejects Philosophy

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/19/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 633 times Debate No: 71968
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

radz

Pro

God exists. Theism is supported by reason. Logically, everything that exists in the physical universe has an ORIGIN (source).

All things that exist in this natural world has a source (origin).

The origin of the universe is called 'deity,'

Atheism clearly rejects Philosophy. Agnosticism and Deism is in line with logic but to affirm that God does not exists is merely and only SUBJECTIVE.
G-g-ghost

Con

I'd like to say hi to my opponent :) and point out I'm an agnostic atheist .. So I personly don't refute the posblity for there being a god like being somewhere in the multi-verse, let's get this debate going I apologize for my rough grammar and spelling ahead of time haha.

You say that God exist ? What a claim my friend plz prove it ? so we can move on to another debate. If you have no proof then I would say ur claim God exist defies logic and reason, which you claimed it was supported by. Since logic and reason are supported by evidence. You claim all things have a source? Yet Science has proven quantum mechanics or to be more pacific quantum particles come from nothing. Also by claiming deism all you have done is taken the argument back a step where did ur God come from? There's only realy 2 choices/stances you can take.

#1.Either everything came from nothing.
or
#2.Certain things were always here .

Neither atheist nor theist can prove nor disprove either one of these. I would say that atheist do a better job/have better theorys. Theory's like The Quantum Void/Vaccum are massively more compelling for me personally than Deism theory's Iv heard or read theory's that claim everything was made in 6 days, or a gaint snake spit up the world after a fierce battle with a lion, seem very primitive to me and defy logic and reason. Can I disprove them? certainly not.
But a wise man once said what can be admitted without any evidence can be dismissed without any evidence.
I would claim atheist are the more logical and reasonable , than theist . Since logic and reason rely on evdence and atheist dispute/refute anything without evdence wile theist belive things on faith..

I would like to ask my opponent to define his definition of God ? Since there are so many different ones.
And happly wait for my opponents rebuttal :)
Debate Round No. 1
radz

Pro

You said:

"You claim all things have a source? Yet Science has proven quantum mechanics or to be more pacific quantum particles come from nothing."

That reminds me of Stanley Miller back in 1953, this sounds nice but its far away from being true. Life coming from non-life isn't a fact. Great Mathematician Harold Morowitz after a long and exhaustive mathematical and statistical study computed that merely to create a bacterium would require more time than the universe might ever see if chance combinations of its molecules were the driving force, spontaneous emergence of single cell organism from random coupling of chemical is as Sir Freud Hoyle said "such an occurrence is about as likely as the assemblage of a 747 by a tornado whirling through a junkyard". Thermodynamics tells us that all nonmanaged, or random, systems ALWAYS pass to a state of greater disorder. Disorder is the statistical trend of nature simply because for any given collection of atoms the number of disorderly combinations is vastly greater than the number of orderly combinations.

Quantum is the Latin word for amount and, in modern understanding, means the smallest possible discrete unit of any physical property, such as energy or matter . Quantum came into the latter usage in 1900, when the physicist Max Planck used it in a presentation to the German Physical Society. Planck had sought to discover the reason that radiation from a glowing body changes in color from red, to orange, and, finally, to blue as its temperature rises. He found that by making the assumption that radiation existed in discrete units in the same way that matter does, rather than just as a constant electromagnetic wave, as had been formerly assumed, and was therefore quantifiable, he could find the answer to his question.

Planck wrote a mathematical equation involving a figure to represent individual units of energy. He called the units quanta . Planck assumed there was a theory yet to emerge from the discovery of quanta, but in fact, their very existence defined a completely new and fundamental law of nature. Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum theory , together, explain the nature and behavior of all matter and energy on earth and form the basis for modern physics. However, conflicts remain between the two. For much of his life, Einstein sought what he called a unified field theory -- one would reconcile the theories' incompatibilities. Subsequently, Superstring Theory and M-theory have been proposed as candidates to fill that role.

Quantum is sometimes used loosely, in an adjectival form, to mean on such an infinitessimal level as to be infinite, as, for example, you might say "Waiting for pages to load is quantumly boring." [1]

Science has opened the way for the "possible" existence of God in the arena of Quantum Physics. A book called Quantum Glory by Phil Mason that compares what science is discovering in the area of quantum entanglement, quantum non-locality, quantum teleportation to what we see in the Bible and in the Christian view of God. It is quite fascinating. Simply point: The universe is made up of wave energy and only collapses into particles / matter as we know it when someone is watching it, and someone has to be watching the whole universe for it to be matter. Sounds like God to me.

God exists. Theism is supported by reason. Logically, everything that exists in the physical universe has an ORIGIN (source).

All things that exist in this natural world has a source (origin).

The origin of the universe is called 'deity,'

God- A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.[2]

Reference

[1]http://www.livescience.com...

[2]American Heritage" Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright " 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
G-g-ghost

Con

Lol I didn't know I signed up to debate Google and wiki... XD
I would also like to point out I never claimed organic matter came from inorganic matter.
I simply pointed out how quantum partials come from nothing which has been proven and debunks ur claim of everything needing a source. I would also like to point out how you ignored my points in my earlier stament about how theist ignore logic and reason with there faith, which you keep insisting backs up there claims.
I find it funny you/wiki reference Einstine for quantum mechanics since he was puzzled by them and couldn't wrap his head around quantum entanglement (another thing which you referenced) he claimed God dosnt play dice and how quantum mechanics couldn't be random. Which has been proven quantum mechanics are actuly random and theres on going studies/prep for studies going on right now with the worlds supercollider to find out exactly how random. Ergo if all matter will sooner or later brake down or not if its proven it will it throws ur intelgent design argument you were trying to make (with ur life dosnt come from inorganic matter comments) out the window. But I can do that without those test/studies being done yet.

You refrenced the Christan God and in ur words claimed a god is a being who is -perfect omnipotent omniscient orgininator and rulerer of the universe, the principle of faith and warship. I'm going to asume ur a Christan baised of this new evidionce. By ur definition alone ur God is not real. Nothing is perfect everything can be improved especially since perfect is a subjective term. Also the thought of a god whose everywhere and can read everyone's minds/thoughts and dose nothing to help when there struggling/suffering the majorty of the time is sickening. The Christan God can give Moses the power to do pledges to save his ppl but watches countles innocent ppl die every day/hr/min
The God of the bible is also absent of logic/reason as is most other man made gods for example Gen-1-16 he had days b4 he made light, he took a rib from adom instead of just making eve out of nothing , Jesus cursed a fig tree for not haveing any figs instead of just making a fig..the boat of Noah couldn't float or hold all the anmials/bugs he also made Mary birth the so called savior well her cursed blood flowed thru him when he was in her womb he also ate food from the cursed earth... I would also like to point out some moral flaws he is pro incest,pro killing,pro slavery ,pro eternal suffering ,pro sexism the list go's on and on sure sounds perfect to me.. (Sarcasm) figured I had to say it or theist might think I'm agreeing.. The fact is that's not perfect it's hogwash ideals and ramblings of probly drunken and high farmers and fishers of an uneducated time in human history

It is highly more logical that a quantum explosion of conduced matter randomly happened pushing the eternal vacuumed back creating the entire know universe and everything in it and is still happening outside our know unverse making multiverse .

Than that

Some so called perfect God made everything who only decided to show him self to uneducated farmers

I wait for ur rebutttl :)
Debate Round No. 2
radz

Pro

My original argument is only centered on Theism. It means that I am not yet endorsing any particular god/gods yet. In Round 2, I referenced the definition of deity in monotheistic religions.Therefore, Con is assuming the "Christian God" in my debate when in fact it could be either Judaism or Islam.

My suggestion to Con is to stick with the original argument as I myself does. My argument is that Theism is logical and Atheism is not due to the fact that everything in the physical universe has an origin. Hence, the universe per se has an origin for the paradigm to follow logically is that there is nothing that comes from nothing.

Can Quantum Mechanics Produce a Universe from Nothing?

My opponent agrees that Quantum Mechanics can produce a universe from nothing.

I strongly agree to disagree.

According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, nothing in the Universe (i.e., matter or energy) can pop into existence from nothing (see Miller, 2013). All of the scientific evidence points to that conclusion.

In 1905, Albert Einstein proposed the idea of mass-energy equivalence, resulting in the famous equation, E = mc2 (1905). We now know that matter can be converted to energy, and vice versa. However, energy and mass are conserved, in keeping with the First Law.

In the words of the famous evolutionary astronomer, Robert Jastrow, “[T]he principle of the conservation of matter and energy…states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Matter can be converted into energy, and vice versa, but the total amount of all matter and energy in the Universe must remain unchanged forever” (1977, p. 32). The idea of matter-energy conversion led one physicist to postulate, in essence, that the cosmic egg that exploded billions of years ago in the alleged “big bang”—commencing the “creation” of the Universe—could have come into existence as an energy-to-matter conversion.

The fact is, the idea that such an event could happen is pure speculation and conjecture. No such phenomenon—the conversion from energy to matter of an entire Universe—has ever been remotely observed. It is a desperate attempt to hold to naturalistic presuppositions, in spite of the evidence, when a supernatural option that is in keeping with the evidence is staring us in the face. Evolutionary physicist Victor Stenger said,

[T]he universe is probably the result of a random quantum fluctuation in a spaceless, timeless void.... So what had to happen to start the universe was the formation of an empty bubble of highly curved space-time. How did this bubble form? What caused it? Not everything requires a cause. It could have just happened spontaneously as one of the many linear combinations of universes that has the quantum numbers of the void.... Much is still in the speculative stage, and I must admit that there are yetno empirical or observational tests that can be used to test the idea of an accidental origin (1987, 7[3]:26-30, italics in orig., emp. added.).

No evidence. No scientific observation. Just speculation.

Ergo, Con's argument is refuted.

In fact, my opponent's stance on the origin of the universe as "from nothing" is very well a nil notch thing.

Energy could not have popped into existence without violating the First Law of Thermodynamics. So in reality, when scientists argue that quantum mechanics creates something from nothing, they do not really mean “nothing.” The problem of how everything got here is still present.

Prominent humanist mathematician and science writer, Martin Gardner, wrote: “It is fashionable now to conjecture that the big bang was caused by a random quantum fluctuation in a vacuum devoid of space and time. But of course such a vacuum is a far cry from nothing” (2000, p. 303, emp. added).

Physicist Richard Morris wrote:

In modern physics, there is no such thing as “nothing.” Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created [i.e., by briefly “borrowing” energy already in existence—JM] and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy (Morris, 1990, p. 25, emp. added).

Vilenkin, while explaining the problems inherent in Tryon’s work, said:

A more fundamental problem is that Tryon’s scenario does not really explain the origin of the universe. A quantum fluctuation of the vacuum assumes that there was a vacuum of some pre-existing space. And we now know that “vacuum” is very different from “nothing.” Vacuum, or empty space, has energy and tension, it can bend and warp, so it is unquestionably something (2006, p. 185, ital. in orig., emp. added).

Bottom line: according to renowned atheist, theoretical physicist, and cosmologist of Cambridge University, Stephen Hawking, in order to create a Universe, “you need just three ingredients”: matter, energy, and space (“Curiosity…,” 2011). These three ingredients must exist in order to create a Universe, according to Hawking. So, the problem remains. Where did the ingredients for the Universe soup come from? There must be an ultimate Cause of the Universe.

G-g-ghost

Con

Ok well my opponents last rebutttl was so riddled with flawed assumption and double standards this is going to take me some, time to debunk and point out them all. I'm going to attempt to go thru my opponents argument and point them out one by one.

Pro"s flawed argument
My original argument is only centered on Theism. It means that I am not yet endorsing any particular god/gods yet. In Round 2, I referenced the definition of deity in monotheistic religions.Therefore, Con is assuming the "Christian God" in my debate when in fact it could be either Judaism or Islam.

---My rebuttal to this is he didn't mention/refrence the Judaism/Islam Gods/books he refrenced the Christan God/books.
If you want to argue genral theism then argue it! And I will aswell but don't push a certain one and not expect me to point out its many many flaws.. Plz try to hold ur self to the standerd you hold me. Like most theist and atheist arguments.. The theist decides to use a refrence from a certain dogma thay favor then decide to say the atheist is going off topic when he points out its flaws... let's quit the double standards?

pros flawed argument->>>My suggestion to Con is to stick with the original argument as I myself does. My argument is that Theism is logical and Atheism is not due to the fact that everything in the physical universe has an origin. Hence, the universe per se has an origin for the paradigm to follow logically is that there is nothing that comes from nothing.

^----my/cons rebuttel like I said before quantum mechaics or more persicly quantum partials come from nothing!! Yes nothing!... To top it off everything in our known existence is made up of these quantum partials.. This fact debunks pros entire above stament. If you want a source Google quantm mechincs for beginners and read up a tad there's plenty of reputable sources like Science.org ect

Pros argument (I trimmed the googled/Wikipedia parts feel free to read above for all of it>>>>>>Can Quantum Mechanics Produce a Universe from Nothing?
My opponent agrees that Quantum Mechanics can produce a universe from nothing.
I strongly agree to disagree.
According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, nothing in the Universe (i.e., matter or energy) can pop into existence from nothing

Cons/my rebuttle^------Welcome to 2015 :D we have learned alot since 1905 infact the vary building blocks of our know unverse come from nothing thay come from nothing then disappear into nothing neat ehh? The biggest thing we've learned since then is how little we actuly know someone better arrest those quantum particals for braking the law haha,
Can quantum mechanics produce a universe from nothing? I say it's highly possible way more proble then some all powerful God farting us into existence for his own amusement

pros argument>>>>>>>The fact is, the idea that such an event could happen is pure speculation and conjecture. No such phenomenon""the conversion from energy to matter of an entire Universe""has ever been remotely observed. It is a desperate attempt to hold to naturalistic presuppositions, in spite of the evidence, when a supernatural option that is in keeping with the evidence is staring us in the face. Evolutionary physicist Victor Stenger said,
[T]he universe is probably the result of a random quantum fluctuation in a spaceless, timeless void.... So what had to happen to start the universe was the formation of an empty bubble of highly curved space-time. How did this bubble form? What caused it? Not everything requires a cause. It could have just happened spontaneously as one of the many linear combinations of universes that has the quantum numbers of the void.... Much is still in the speculative stage, and I must admit that there are yetno empirical or observational tests that can be used to test the idea of an accidental origin (1987, 7[3]:26-30, italics in orig., emp. added.).
No evidence. No scientific observation. Just speculation.
Ergo, Con's argument is refuted.
In fact, my opponent's stance on the origin of the universe as "from nothing" is very well a nil notch thing.
Energy could not have popped into existence without violating the First Law of Thermodynamics. So in reality, when scientists argue that quantum mechanics creates something from nothing, they do not really mean "nothing." The problem of how everything got here is still present.

cons/my argument^^^-----I find my opponents above staments and points, hilarious and laughable ..
All orgin theroys have "no direct evidence proving them" this is not the same as no evidence , it impossible to scientifically observe the orgin of everything .. Speculations ? No it's called an educated hypothesis ,, I would point out you failed to prove gods are the orgin base on the standerds you just held me too and thay all fail the above test.. If your asking why we can't/haven't seen new universe's being created then you don't understand the quantum void/vacuum theory .. I'll explain it the best I can but suggest you research it.
Quantum void theory states that the vacuum of space is eternal and infinite, this is not the same space we have outside our ozone, the space outside our ozone is universal space caused from when our unverse starterded (some call this the Big Bang) will refer to universal space as space from now on and orgin space as void.. let's continue so quantum void theory states that the void is endless and is and always was its just there something has to be and the void is it, we have no idea what's in this void truly but scientist,belive it has all the stuff needed for new universes to be born, the reason we are not witnessing this happening? For this I'll use an example picture big bowl with water in it , then imagine an explosion so strong it creates everything in the know universe ,what happened to the water? Well silly it got pushed out by the explosion. Why can't we see the void? Becuse we haven't devloped the tec to see outside our know universe yet! To add to the theory some scientist belive this is still happening out in the void causing us to have multiverse , it is also note worth that there is evidence that not only has our entire know universe exploded into being here,, but there is strong evidence of it imploding back on its self.. Which takes divine design theory and demolishes it (a theory my opponets been hinting at.
I belive this answers all the silly poping from nothing rambling ,and violates no laws of physics , unlike theist who's holy text violets countless laws of physics

Pros point/question>>>>>Bottom line: according to renowned atheist, theoretical physicist, and cosmologist of Cambridge University, Stephen Hawking, in order to create a Universe, "you need just three ingredients": matter, energy, and space ("Curiosity"," 2011). These three ingredients must exist in order to create a Universe, according to Hawking. So, the problem remains. Where did the ingredients for the Universe soup come from? There must be an ultimate Cause of the Universe.

cons\my point<<<<>>>>

Idk where everything came from for the cosmic soup,mabe it has always been inside the endless eternal void,
Mabe in 2000 more years will have strong enough telescopes or space travel and witness universes being born.
But just becuse I don't know something dosnt mean I have to fill the lack of me knowing something with an all powerful God who I can toss around to answer the things I don't know .. Ergo not knowing somthing dosnt mean Harry potter did it/made it happen.

I wait for my opponets rebuttel :P
Debate Round No. 3
radz

Pro

In Round 2, I presented this:

Science has opened the way for the "possible" existence of God in the arena of Quantum Physics. A book called Quantum Glory by Phil Mason that compares what science is discovering in the area of quantum entanglement, quantum non-locality, quantum teleportation to what we see in the Bible and in the Christian view of God. It is quite fascinating. Simply point: The universe is made up of wave energy and only collapses into particles / matter as we know it when someone is watching it, and someone has to be watching the whole universe for it to be matter. Sounds like God to me.

My opponent misapprehended my source as to mean that I am endorsing Christianity as a whole when in fact I only presented that Quantum Physics coincides with what we see in the Bible and in the Christian view of God (i.e. monotheism).This is due to the fact that I used a Christian source for Christians are theists and they , as theists, have an argument for God's existence from logic and science irregardless of their position on the Godhead.

Con's misunderstood it completetly. He must have focused on the science of my argument's source and not the theology of my source.

Con misrepresented my argument.

Con said:

"I find my opponents above staments and points, hilarious and laughable ..
All orgin theroys have "no direct evidence proving them" this is not the same as no evidence , it impossible to scientifically observe the orgin of everything .. Speculations ? No it's called an educated hypothesis"

This is the context of my source:

"Evolutionary physicist Victor Stenger said,
[T]he universe is probably the result of a random quantum fluctuation in a spaceless, timeless void.... So what had to happen to start the universe was the formation of an empty bubble of highly curved space-time. How did this bubble form? What caused it? Not everything requires a cause. It could have just happened spontaneously as one of the many linear combinations of universes that has the quantum numbers of the void.... Much is still in the speculative stage, and I must admit that there are yet no empirical or observational tests that can be used to test the idea of an accidental origin."

Con needs to know the whole picture:

“According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is “by no means a simple empty space”.

Quantum fluctuations, theoretical constructs, by the way, require space and time as prerequisites before they can fluctuate.

The total amount of energy in the universe we presently occupy is approximately 10^120 x 10^140 (including degrees of gravitational freedom) quanta, multiplied by the amount of energy per quantum.

Each quantum contains an infinite amount of energy. Any infinite amount of anything placed into a finite container will, of course, constantly spill over, creating a measurable, testable release of energy. This energy has indeed been measured and tested, and is known as the Casimir Effect.

The quantum void, as well, is not nothing, although it is certainly not a ‘thing’ either.

The base particles of matter have no mass and are only differentiated from void by form (angle and spin). Odd isn’t it that the ultimate materialism winds up, at the quantum level, being dependent on form – or to put it as Heisenberg did “Plato was right after all.”. Mass comes about if/when these particles move in a certain fashion. Rather than being “space” the void could better be pictured as a seething layer of massless particles constantly being created and destroyed.

In fact the void bears a striking resemblance to some facets of Eckhart’s mysticism. Put simply, as Aristotle said “unformed matter and the void are not differentiable and therefore the same.”, Eckhart’s description of the godhead, originally a gnostic term, was that the godhead had no attributes that could be posited of it – i.e. no positive attributes. Eckhart’s godhead, then, would also not be differentiable from the void.

My argument that the universe ,per Quantum Hypothesis, came from vacuum -- not in the sense of empty or absolute nothingness --is still stands and remains unrefuted.

In modern physics, there is no such thing as “nothing.” Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created [i.e., by briefly “borrowing” energy already in existence—JM] and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy (Morris, 1990, p. 25, emp. added).

Vilenkin, while explaining the problems inherent in Tryon’s work, said:

A more fundamental problem is that Tryon’s scenario does not really explain the origin of the universe. A quantum fluctuation of the vacuum assumes that there was a vacuum of some pre-existing space. And we now know that “vacuum” is very different from “nothing.”Vacuum, or empty space, has energy and tension, it can bend and warp, so it is unquestionably something (2006, p. 185, ital. in orig., emp. added).

Therefore, my original argument remains unrefuted:

God exists. Theism is supported by reason. Logically, everything that exists in the physical universe has an ORIGIN (source).

Logically, all things that exist in this natural world has a source (origin).

The origin of the universe is called 'deity,'

Atheism clearly rejects Philosophy. Agnosticism and Deism is in line with logic but to affirm that God does not exists is merely and only SUBJECTIVE.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

G-g-ghost

Con

I'm take a different approach this round , my opponent clearly belifes atheism rejects philosophy , wile deism is in line with logic ..

Pro refuse to see how quantm particals come from nothing.. Fine I'm sick of reading the walls of wiki and goggle to see him fail to debunk this.

My questions where do Gods come from?
How do you know a god exist ?
What proof or evidence do you have for such a claim? (You don't need evidence to not belive somthing that's illogical)
You claim all things in the natural/physical realm require a source ? Most major theist religions, gods have claims of some sort, of being part of the natural realm so what's there source?

Atheist don't need a source to say idk since, Science hasen't been able to prove where we come from and can flock to w/e theory we like the most till it is proven for me that happens to be the quantum void/vacuume. I'm not here to defend void theory I'm here to show how theist views clearly don't follow philosophy the way you claim thay do.

Philosophy-the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge,reality and existence.

Just becuse science can't prove something dosnt mean god did it this,is a god of a gaps argument and follows flawed logic.

Pros definition of a god is
God- A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

ruler- a person exercising government or dominion
dominion - control sovereignty (supreme power or authority)
exercise- the use or application of a faculty ,right or process

Logic clearly dictates if such a being was exercising such power/authority we would have evidence or notice it..

The fundmental mental nature of knowledge ,reality and existence has been proven to be the brain.
I can pull ur heart out and put you on dialysis and you will still be here talking eating doing w/e same for other body parts I pull ur brain out you are dead even if your body's on life support ur nothing more than a meat bag, There is no chance you will talk sit up eat or recover ect

Ergo Philosophy is the BRAIN!
Atheist don't reject the brain thay nurture it and feed it all the logical knowledge they can , in hopes of evolving slightly more some atheist even study the brain to understand what dose what and why..
So in conclusion my opponets debate/argument on atheist rejecting philosophy is flat out wrong as for his claims of a god
He must be the best hide 'n seek champ ever :)

Also if you take my opponets argument everything comes from something every logical person will eventaly reach the conclusion somthing had to always be.
Claiming a god was always there dosnt make theist anymore logical or fall in line anymore with Philosophy than an atheist claiming a void was always there or condensed matter was always there ect.

I feel I have fully debunked pros staments and look forward to his rebuttal :)
Debate Round No. 4
radz

Pro

My opponent clearly did not rebut my argument on Quantum Physics. I have shown that he is wrong in his assertion that the natural cosmos had its origin from absolute nothingness.Science is at my side.

Ergo, my argument still stands. God exists. Theism is supported by reason. Logically, everything that exists in the physical universe has an ORIGIN (source).

Atheism clearly rejects Philosophy. Agnosticism and Deism is in line with logic but to affirm that God does not exists is merely and only SUBJECTIVE.

Just as it is bogus for theists to claim infants are theists, so too is it bogus to claim infants & zygotes are atheists. "Atheism is a conscious position" ; the only implicit atheists are agnostics who do not realize they have rejected belief, not merely suspended it.

"Disbelief" is not the same as "unbelief". Disbelief indicates some kind of difficulty believing something.

To reject belief one must know of it. Infants, fetuses and zygotes are not aware of belief in gods, and therefore not theistic or atheistic.

Atheism = logic: NONE ( unbelief without basis whatsoever).

Agnosticism = logic: Rejection of certainty that God doesn't exist or does exists.It behooves to have evidence first and foremost in order to establish belief.

Deism = logic: God does not intervene in His creation. Law of cause and effect.

Humans are rational beings. Capability to reason is a human aptitude. The brain is the center of consciousness and of behavior.

Psychology - Psyche ( soul); ology ( study, discourse, word of).

Humans as rational beings are souls.Logic stems from this reality.

Philosophy - Philo (love) ;sophia (wisdom).

Humans as rational beings are ascertaining ideas , searching for an answer from a question.

My argument is clearly philosophical AND it has a basis on science per se.

scientia = cognitio certa per causas.

God has no origin. Energy is neither created nor destroyed.As a theist, I call that 'God.' In science, they called it a scientific 'Law.'

To all of my dear readers/ viewers of this debate challenge, look at my arguments on...

Law of Thermodynamics

&

Quantum Physics

...throughout this debate challenge so as to see and read for yourselves that my original argument has a solid basis:

God exists. Theism is supported by reason. Logically, everything that exists in the physical universe has an ORIGIN (source).

All things that exist in this natural world has a source (origin).

The origin of the universe is called 'deity,'

SCIENCE AND REASON DICTATE THAT ATHEISM REJECTS PHILOSOPHY

VOTE PRO!
G-g-ghost

Con

Dear voters/viewers as you can clearly see from my opponents round 1 argument to his final he has claimed several things
-claim 1 God exist.
- claim 2 atheism rejects philosophy.

He has however failed to provided any substantial evdence for these claims.
His evdence was everything has to have an orgin and God must be that orgin.

In my round 4 argument I clearly refuted these stances with logic and questions that my opponet failed to answer and completely ignored in his final argument .

I will reinforce my round 4 argument and dispute the claims pro made in his final yet agin.

Definition of atheism- Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of gods or God. <- the true definition of atheist

I pointed out in round 4 that both atheist and theist both have to eventaly come to the same conclusion, Somthing has to have always existed. The difference is atheist don't claim anyone particular thing, And won't till science proves it. Unlike theist who claim it is God... based on what? Faith ? This is not logical.
I also pointed out in round 4 how philosophy was the brain thru definition and how atheist clearly don't reject the brain..

Pro claimed it was bogus for atheist to claim baby's as atheist by default. A claim I had not made or mentioned till now..
But since he brought it up yes everyone is athesit by default .. Since atheism is lack of belief by definition.
We neither claim belief nor support belief of Gods by default from lack of evidence, I'd more than happly belive in a god if he would show him/her self not saying I wouldn't fight it if it turned out to be a ruthless dictator, (that's besides the point tho)
What pro is trying to do is force anti-theism's definition on athesit and this is just unfair and untrue wile some anti-theist claim them selfs and militant athesit, that is in no way the same as atheism.
Most theist are athesit aswell to to prove my point if you ask a person who is a Christian,Muslim, Judaism,Buddhism,Spaghettiism what God thay belive in, then ask if thay belive in the others thay will more often then not say No! From lack of evidence for them.. Fundamental Athesit just take the process one step further and get rid of one more god till there's proof for them. To claim atheism rejects philosophy is the same as claiming most theism rejects philosophy which is just absurd right?

I would like to thank the readers of this debate one more time and hope you don't judge me too harshly for my awful grammar spelling and punctuation.,?!

And ask them to vote for who thay thought made the most sense and logical argument in the debate -drops the mic- Adios :P
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by G-g-ghost 2 years ago
G-g-ghost
@ Radz would of been nice if you acknowledged my points and questions in round 4 but w/e finaly got my 3rd debate done I can vote now on other debates Woot woot! :D
Posted by radz 2 years ago
radz
I'm talking about Philosophy NOT Philosophers.

Philosophy praises LOGIC.

God exists. Theism is supported by reason. Logically, everything that exists in the physical universe has an ORIGIN (source).

All things that exist in this natural world has a source (origin).

The origin of the universe is called 'deity,'

Atheism clearly rejects Philosophy. Agnosticism and Deism is in line with logic but to affirm that God does not exists is merely and only SUBJECTIVE.
Posted by n7natnat 2 years ago
n7natnat
Um*
Posted by n7natnat 2 years ago
n7natnat
Crap I forgot to uncheck the box. Now I'm gone.
Posted by n7natnat 2 years ago
n7natnat
Hey I'm just commenting to stop getting notifications. I agree with atheism and I'm a philosophy major, so yea just putting that out there, and I'm Godspeed to you all. Bye. I won't repaond back if you try to comment to me on this post.
Posted by YoungLeader4216 2 years ago
YoungLeader4216
I agree everything has a source. But, that doesn`t mean that the source is an invisible man in the sky who creates the whole universe just because he felt like it. You are making a BIG claim here and have no proof to back it up. Not a good debating strategy.
Posted by Asburnu 2 years ago
Asburnu
(Sigh) Do your homework first. Philosophers are predominantly atheists. That's why they become philosophers, because they reject religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
(Sigh.)
Posted by n7natnat 2 years ago
n7natnat
Lol atheism does not reject philososphy, rather it does the "opposite". With no religious morals to abide by, an atheist must decide for himself what is right and wrong. Why do you think no atheist thinks right and wrong the same? Because we are not bound to an absolute standard of morality and decide for oursleves. Friedrich Nietzsche is proof that atheist do have philosophy. He literally wrote "books" saying that atheist need to decide for themselves what is right and wrong. I would recommend reading "Beyond Good and Evil" by Nietzsche to know more. One of the greatest books in myu opinion ever. It makes you question your own philosophy and makes you rethink it. Its wonderful.
No votes have been placed for this debate.