The Instigator
chipmonk
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Overhead
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Atheism is a LIE

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Overhead
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 772 times Debate No: 89123
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (29)
Votes (1)

 

chipmonk

Pro

chipmonk
Pro
I am Pro.

I have yet to recieve a satisfactory rebuttle to this argument. Hopefully, this time around , my opponent will not use critical fallacies one after another in place of his argument. If you do not know what a "fallacy" is, please do not accept this debate.

There are no rules in logical debates. The only rule is that you be logical. If you are illogical , or only want to discuss things based on a matter of your own opinion, please do not accept this debate.

I present 3 constructs, in which i argue each is a logical truth on its own.. As well as my final conclusion being deduced from the combination of all three constructs. You can attempt to refute any part of my construct, definitions or logic. Just please do so logically.

My resolution is "Atheism is a lie."


Below is my logical argument supporting my resolution.

Theism. Belief in God
Atheism. Disbelief in God.

A LIE. Deception. Pretending. Acting. Hypocrisy. To decieve another or give another a false or inaccurate depiction of the truth.

Belief...assumption of truth with or without evidence
Disbelief assumption of falsehood due to a lack or contradictory evidence.

Faith. An assertive Belief without valid evidence.
Knowing. An assertive belief with valid evidence.

Construct 1
Premise1 : no one can know if God exists of not.
Premise2: to claim to know is to have valid evidence
Conclusion: whoever claims to know if God exists or not, is a liar.

Construct 2
Premise 1: Believers claim they have faith God exists.
Premise 2: to have faith is a belief without valid evidence (see defintions)
Conclusion: Believers do not claim to "know" if God exists.

Construct 3
Premise 1: Atheists claim they disbelieve God exists.
Premise 2: disbelief or rejection of a claim is based on a lack of valid evidence and an abundance of contradictory evidence. (See definitions)
Conclusion: Atheists claim to "know" if God exists.

Final Conclusion.: Atheism is a lie by definition and logic.

Report this Argument as flawless.
Overhead

Con

Thank you Chipmonk for making this debate. Best of luck.

Format
As Chipmonk is PRO and the instigator, the burden of proof is on him to support "Atheism is a LIE". As Con I will rebut his argument and support the statement that Atheism is not a lie.

Definitions
Thanks to chipmonk for providing several definitions. While mostly fine, I believe two drastically need redefinition and one additional definitions is needed that wasn't provided, but could be helpful as I expect we'd otherwise shortly be debating over it's meaning.

The first redefinition is for "Lie". I propose that this should be redefined as "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood."

1) This is an actual recognised definition and the most primary and therefore pertinent one. [1]

2) Lack of deliberate intent in PRO's version is a meaningful difference which requires redefinition if there is a better version offered.

3) Several things give indications that PRO is referencing my definition. The capitalised emphasis on LIE in the title, offering the synonym of deceitful with all it's negative connotations and the fact that he goes out of his way to try and show believers as superior (see Construct 2 below) all give a clear impression that he holds "lie" in a moralistic context. This is only present with my definition, as with his definition the person "lying" is not by definition intentionally meaning to deceive so it could be synonymous for mistaken and other words which do not carry moral weight. My word best fits his usage.

4) Using a non-standard definition of "lie" invalidates the underlying basis of the topic "atheism is a lie"

The other redefinition is for "Disbelief". I propose this should be "assumption of falsehood with or without evidence".

1) As antonyms with the same root and the difference being the prefix of "dis", belief and disbelief should be logically consistent. Instead belief is "assumption of truth with or without evidence" while disbelief is given as "assumption of falsehood due to a lack or contradictory evidence." The definitions of belief and disbelief are prejudiced and inconsistent as only one required a lack of contradictory evidence. This gives a biased and inconsistent usage when each must be used in a logical argument.

2) I would be happier with a more precise definition of "theinabilityorrefusaltobelieveortoacceptsomethingastrue"[2] but then I'd have to change the definition of "belief" too to keep them consistent and I'd prefer to keep that to a minimum, Again this usage is closer to the actual recognised definition and the most primary and therefore pertinent one.

3) PRO's usage is already inconsistent. Under definitions he merely says it needs to be "due to a lack or contradictory evidence." Later he says disbelief must be "based on a lack of valid evidence and an abundance of contradictory evidence". AND is very different from OR in this context and in addition to abundance this shows PRO shows him trying to weight the burden unfairly on myself when he puts himself under no such measures for arguing the belief of a theist.

4) PRO uses disbelief as the inverse of belief in his argument so they should have inverse meanings. The statements "I believe X is wrong" and "I disbelief that X is right" should be identical meanings due to the change in right/wrong. Because of the radically different requirement and burdens of proof PRO tries to set for belief and disbelief, they are not. They therefore cannot be used.

5) As disbelief is used in reference to what atheists claim in construct 4 and is used to define atheists in definitions, it should be representative of the word as atheists use it. Atheists hold a wide range of weak and strong, implicit and explicit, negative and positive beliefs about the non-existence of god[3]. Some of these, such as implicit atheists who have "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it"[4] do not disbelieve in God as per PRO's definition but do as per mine. Mine is more relevant and inclusive.

An additional definition I would like to add is evidence: "thatwhichtendstoproveordisprovesomething;groundforbelief;proof."

Rebuttal
PRO has put together three syllogisms, each with two premises and one conclusion. Despite his claim that if the premises are right then the final conclusion shows atheism is a lie, he has not at any point shown that the any one of the premise is true. Until he has done so the conclusion does not matter.

The BoP is on PRO so I look forward to him offering this evidence from rounds 2 onwards.

I will however offer some preliminary arguments showing that the premise are false or irrelevant.

Construct 1
Premise1 : no one can know if God exists of not.

To know is to have "An assertive belief with valid evidence". The requirement is only to have evidence, not incontrovertible and completely iron-clad proof.

Based on the assumption (please let me know if you contest it, otherwise I'll assume you concede it) that scientists have looked into the causes of various different phenomenon like gravity, waves, magnetism, evolution, etc and found no evidence of god we can state:

We have consistently failed to find evidence of God's existence
God probably doesn't exist.

Although not definitive, it counts as valid evidence based on inductive reasoning[4] as per the definitions provided. Abductive reasoning could also be used.

Conclusion: whoever claims to know if God exists or not, is a liar.

Even if premise 1 were true this is incorrect. As per my redefinition, it does not mean they are a liar because that requires "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive". That is not shown in your construct. Someone claiming to know if God exists could be merely mistaken as they didn't think through the logic properly, or maybe they were lied to and were saying something they believed to be true.

Construct 2
This is completely irrelevant. If in the later rounds PRO provides proof that Construct 1 and 3 are right, then the overall premise of atheists being liars is proven true regardless of what believers claim. This seems to be only added as an attempt to prove moral superiority which is not a factor in this topic.

Construct 3
Premise 1: Atheists claim they disbelieve God exists.
Premise 2: disbelief or rejection of a claim is based on a lack of valid evidence and an abundance of contradictory evidence. (See definitions)
Conclusion: Atheists claim to "know" if God exists.

As per my redefinitions, this biased usage should no longer be used unless you can put forward an argument of why your definitions hold.

Furthermore, as pointed out earlier you are contradicting your own previously given definition here.

Lastly this relies on Construct 1 being true, which I have argued it is not.

[1] http://goo.gl...
[2] http://goo.gl...
[3] https://goo.gl...
[4] https://goo.gl...
[5] https://goo.gl...

Debate Round No. 1
chipmonk

Pro

Thank you Con for accepting this debate and setting forth an intial attempt to refute my claim.
I welcome your rebuttals , as they are but misconceptions I now hope to clarify for everyone reading. Con especially.

-the burden of heavy ears-
In a formal debate, or even in a civil conversation where both parties are genuinely interested in discovering truth, one does not place the "burden of proof,," on to one side of the conversation. If it were so that a conversation would go on where one side constantly demanded proof from the other , ,for every single claim , One can easily imagine ,another scenario where one person is placing their fingers in their ears and singing "lalala" and the outcome of both conversations would be more or less the same. There is a always a burden on both parties involved , or any party making any expression of thought at all. if it were not so, my opponent would not have needed to provide a rebuttal.

This is the first demonstration of the atheistic LIE. Or atheistic Falsehood. New atheists enjoy demanding that one person has the burden of proof. While they are free from any burden of providing proof of their own claims. In no realm of reality does such a standard apply when honestly discovering truth. Even in court, a defendent must provide proof of his alibi to be taken seriously.. A prosecutor must provide proof of allegations to be deem the defendant guilty. . And so on. Here , proof is not scientific but any type of compounded evidence that leads accepting a claim as true, beyond a reasonable doubt

. -definitions-
Con wants to redefine the words i provided which i generally took from dictionary.com anyways. But at the end of the day con only obscures the definition, limiting the term ,LIE to mean only statements that are made deceptively. Con also points that that "intentions" as well as "deliberation" are a critical factor in determining whether such person is a liar or not. However, my contention is that ,"atheism " is a lie. An ideology, such as atheism, democracy, etc. cannot intend to do anything on its own. So the "better version," offered by my opponent does nof fit the definition in my resolution. The more robust definition of lie, is not to simply include verbal statements that can exact intentions behind them, but also include the idea of "falsehood, an untrue idea, or a false belief"
noun1.a false statement; lie.Synonyms: fabrication, prevarication, falsification, canard, invention, fiction, story.2.something false; an untrue idea, belief, etc.:The Nazis propagated the falsehood (lie) of racial superiority, while Atheists propagate the lie of an absence of God, evidence for God, and belief. Whether the individual intentions of the nazi or atheist is good or bad becomes entirely irrelevant, if the claim made by their ideoogy itself is ..
1. False.
2. Propagated as True ( by knowing or ignorant individuals )
3. Setting forth false information ( by knowing or ignorant individuals )4. Concealing true information
4. Concealing true information ( by knowing more ignorant )
5. Consistently used to persuade others.

Thus, if atheism is found to be false (a god really does exist) , then the ideology itself would be a lie. At least according to commonly accepted definitions as stated above. The truth of the matter is, anyone knows what a ",lie" means. It certainly isn't a difficult vocabulary to understand. But my opponent would have you believe it is. Yet another lie. The dependency of "atheism" being true or false, relies on the existence of God, not on the intentions of the atheist. Logic.

And if I were to say that I "knew" for a fact or held scientific evidence that God does exist, I would also be contradicting my own assertion, making myself a liar. I donnot claim to "know" such things, but I do assert that a majority of atheists (if niot all) DO claim to "know" that God does not exist.

The claim is simple. As my logic above. The "disbelief" that atheists assert can stem from only one of two "intentions". As my opponent himself conceded already. The first intention is that of "ignorance." Which my opponent describes as a mistake. An accident. An UNINTENTIONAL action or statement that mis leads to harm or falsehood. The second form of disbelief stems , not from "ignorance", confusion or bewilderment, but instead stems from "contradictory evidence!" This type of disbelief, or rejection of a claim, is based solely on the idea that the claim cannot be true or appears unlikely, due to the readily available evidence, which does not support the claim, and therefore stands in direct opposition of the claim. A key example of this would be the assertion of evolution over God.

In any case. Disbelief is therefore hey rejection of a claim with or without evidence. A rejection of a claim without evidence is better known as being "unbelievable," or we could properly define it as an "unbelief." Unbelief is a result of ignorance. Not knowledge. A rejection of a claim with evidence , implies that contradictory evidence has been evaluated and accepted as true. Ergo, such a rejection of a claim is also a COUNTER claim, for which evidence is being presented, and therefore being presented as KNOwLedge. (See definition of knowledge.)

Belief itself cannot be knowledge. Though it may be founded on valid evidence. But disbelief is also not knowledge in itself. But also may be founded based on valid evidence. regardless of whether someone disbelieves or believes , if they claim that their beliefs are based on valid and justifiable evidence , then they are claiming to have knowledge to sustain those beliefs.

Atheists individually claim to have knowledge of God As a result of their ideology.

An atheists demands evidence (for which he has not determined what constitutes validity by any sensible means) and asserts that if God existed, so would the evidence for God. Here the atheist is lying by nature of his ideology by "pretending" to "know" what evidence for God even looks like or would be. The atheist presupposes and assumes that he KNOWS what God is like, how to define Him, and how to scrutinize evidence for such an entitiy.

If God is defined as the creator of all things. And all things exist. Existence of all things is evidence for God. Even according to cons definition of evidence. yet Con proves my point by saying " we have consistently failed to find evidence of God's existence. God probably doesn't exist. ". As stated above, con is pretending to know what God is. Con has defined God in his mind , as no objective definition for God exists, and con has concluded that his imaginary God probably does not exist. Well I agree with con, that his God does not exist. Sincerely, I do not expect con to know Or be able to define God in his mind. Nor do I expect Con to be able to provide any evidence for or against The real God (should he exist). Thus i can conclude that Con is either ignorant towards God,, or pretending to know somethin he does not. And since Con demands evidence, we can easily see he is acting like he knows what evidence for God should be.

As a final nail in the coffin , and to demonstrate my and to demonstrate my point once more over point once moreover, i'd like to see if con can answer a simple question. If you cannot , all of my claims would appear to stand Val all of my claims would appear to stand Valid. The question is this;

Con states that if God existed we probably would have found some sort of evidence. What kind of evidence (not already presented) would lead us to believe God existed ?

In answering this question. Con must provide a reasonable answer that would properly reflect reality. Con cannot assume God manifesting in the sky as a bearded man would be evidence for God. That would only be evidence for cons imaginary God. Con's evidnence that would convince him, must demonstrate an all powerful ,but also an all loving, God.
Overhead

Con

Burden of Proof

I think that PRO misunderstands the argument. I am not stating that at no point in my entire argument I have no burden of proof in any way as he seems to suggest and rely on in his argument.

Instead I hold to the basic conception of the burden of proof, which is that people must back up their own claims with evidence and reasoning. He must back his claims up with evidence and I must back up mine. His extraordinary scenarios about eternal asking for BoP or some core atheist falsehood of never needing a burden of proof are therefore misreadings on his part or my argument and completely irrelevant - for instance if I say he has not met BoP, that is a claim on my part which incurs the BoP for me and I must prove it.

As the central debate of this issue is a claim he makes, he holds the burden of proof over this issue. As we discuss and debate and make arguments, we will each have the burden of proof over the specific claims we make in relation to this.

The key significance isn't that I don't need to provide proof or evidence when I make my own claims but rather that when it comes to the central issue, I need provide a more convincing argument for an alternative OR show that his claim does not hold true.

Although there are many different assumptions about Burden of Proof, I would note that the DDO Tutorial lists my position as the customarily correct one.

"Finally, it is important to establish which opponent has the burden of proof, abbreviated as BOP.

The general custom is that an instigator that makes a positive claim, must provide evidence that the claim is true. Asserting that a claim is not the same as arguing that the claim is true."[1]

When instigators wish to have a shared BoP, the norm is to state this in the opening post along with

Personally I think I can prove his argument incorrect even if there is a shared burden of proof over the central claim, but as I believe that the greater leeway from the standard BoP assumptions is on my side as standard I feel I shouldn't throw this away.

Definition
General Points
I have compared your definitions to those in dictionary.com[2]. Contrary to your claims not a single definition is taken from dictionary.com. You might personally think some are close enough in meaning to be analogous for the purposes of this debate and for some of those I'd agree, but that is a personal opinion and for those where there is dispute you cannot lean on dictionary.com as an expert source that agrees with you - because not one of your definitions is from there.

Lie Definition
My opponents arguments here are inconsistent with his R1 argument and show that he cannot be correct.

His central argument as presented in R1 hinges on showing that atheists lie (as a verb, saying falsehoods). See for example: "Atheists claim they disbelieve God exists." His argument is that a collection of individuals are performing an action that can be performed as a lie.

His R2 definitions are incompatible.

He states that as per the heading, the argument only relates to atheism as "An ideology, such as atheism, democracy, etc" which "cannot intend to do anything on its own.". Furthermore he now presents lie as a noun, referring to an essential truth - something that is not related to whether individuals or not. SO the argument is in essence "Does God Exist".

As if we assume his R1 logic is correct, that only shows that individual atheists as people are liars. It does not show that atheism as an ideology is a lie. It is therefore clear that his entire argument lacks topicality and is irrelevant.

Furthermore he does not relate his unevidenced claims to my point and devolves into name-calling. I offered sourced that the core and standard definition of "lie" is someone who deliberately tells a falsehood. Despite his argument having no proof or logic and basically being because "I say so", he then says I am lying. I ask that I be awarded conduct on this basis.

And if I were to say that I "knew" for a fact or held scientific evidence that God does exist, I would also be contradicting my own assertion, making myself a liar.

In this, even if you are right about every other point, you show your claims to knowledge about what is possible for atheists to know are in fact incorrect based on the premise of your argument.

Your argument can be summarised as:

"As it is impossible to explicitly confirm evidence of supernatural attributes which practically by definition defy definitive provability. It is impossible to have knowledge of possible supernatural attributes and therefore impossible to know for certain that a supernatural god exists."

I don't agree with this argument and as explained in R1 and below, I think it can be shown that people can know things by your definitions.

However, I would make the following logical extension of your argument to be true if voters do decide that my R1 argument (which I deal with again in the heading beneath this one) is in their estimation incorrect:

"As it is impossible to explicitly confirm evidence of supernatural attributes which practically by definition defy definitive provability. It is impossible to have knowledge of possible supernatural attributes and therefore impossible to know for certain that a supernatural atheist exists."

It is potentially possible for an atheist to have supernatural powers which definitively tell them whether god exists.

Now I think such a statement is absurd (as with the existence of god). However, I cannot say it is definitively wrong and an impossibility using deductive reasoning because these supernatural abilities cannot be absolutely disproven.

It might seem more absurd than the existence of god based on common cultural norms, but common cultural norms have no relation to the logic and reasoning which you say will be your argument. There is no logical reasoning that one unprovable supernatural occurrence would be more likely than the other (by your incorrect interpretation of your definitions) and it cannot be deductively reasoned.

Therefore Construct 1 premise 1 does not hold and the entire argument which relies on it fails.

If you wish to use evidence and reasoning to show that it could still be true, then you must use inductive reasoning (please see my R1 source on this) - using the likelihood rather than the certainty that there are no supernatural atheists to support your claim. If you accept inductive reasoning as valid, you must accept my R1 argument.

Either way you cannot be correct.

"An atheists demands evidence (for which he has not determined what constitutes validity by any sensible means) and asserts that if God existed, so would the evidence for God"

No, this misunderstands the claim.

The point isn't that there is solid evidence that definitely shows gods existence is a 100% impossibility.

The point is that there are small pieces of indicative evidence that god does not exist - (That every thing we investigates shows non-supernatural causes that would indicate the existence of god).

Based on this we can use inductive reasoning to assume that it is likely that God does not exist. This satisfies the definition of "knowing" you gave and "evidence" I gave (you had not offered a definition for evidence so it is unopposed as a definition). It doesn't prove with 100% possibility that god doesn't exist, but it doesn't need to because it still meets all definitions as laid out without reference to any argument over redefinitions - which are separate points.

This is a summary of the latter part of my R1 argument, which you have not addressed and which meets all definitions you provided.

If you think there is a valid definition of "just" which invalidates this logic, please provide it. Otherwise vague inferences do not make a sound argument.

Still no backing for the premise

Although you try and rebut various points of my premise, you still have not offered an explanation for why your various premises are true. Your argument is therefore unsound.

[1] http://goo.gl...
[2] http://goo.gl...
Debate Round No. 2
chipmonk

Pro

Ok Thanks again Con. For setting for a formidable rebuttal.

-BoP-
First, I must concede to Con on his remarks regarding BoP. Though I would just like to mention, that since it is not really relevant as to whether one side holds the burden or both, (at least in terms of determining a winner for the debate), it isn;t worth taking up space to argue about further. However, overall, I must admit I see arguing against Con's idea that an instigator should hold the BoP. Since I have asserted the resolution, and provided the logical construct , he is absolutely right. I am holding the burden of proof in this case. All Con needs to do is show or demonstrate that my BoP is lacking or inconsistent. Still, Con should not ignore what proof is presented before him, and neither should the readers.

Now thats finished ... to the meat.

Definitions.
-I must apologize also, for saying dictionary.com. In fact it was just the top result on Google, when typing in the word. if you type a word into google, it gives you the definition at the very top sometimes, )

- I provided a valid definition of Lie. which can be used to express the false statement of an individual, BUT ALSO to describe the accuracy or veracity of a belief, idea, or ideology. (ie. Chrisitianity is a lie, the lie of racial supremacy, etc.)

-Con continues to argue that this definition is incompatible, but is grasping for technicalities that do not apply to the robust world of semantic logic. The word LIE, applies to a very many different circumstances, And FURTHER, my resolution is NOT to say that each individual Atheist lies all the time, and cannot live without uttering lies. My resolution is only that "Atheism" (or even more specifically New Atheism) is a false ideology, therefore being a lie, and then it is propagated mostly out of ignorance, more than anything else. Though the falseness of the ideology relies on God's existence, existing or not, it also makes the individual atheist a liar IF there is the assumption of knowledge, in the absence of such knowledge. Ergo. My opponent exlaims.. : "If God was ever here, he would've left a marking in my backyard!' Then, my contention is that ...that is an atheistic lie, borne from an atheistic doctrine upheld by Atheism. And if atheists lie, (at least about God) , and atheists say its probable God doesn't exist. Then inductively, we can gather, God probably does exist. Since Atheists lie. Logic. Yet I digress. First I must demonstrate that You, as an atheist, LIE about God, about everything related to the topic. (Though not necessarily all the time)

- To reiterate, Con says my definition of Lie is incompatible but does not provide ANY argument for why. Except for restating what I said., describing an aspect about it,.... then declaring it "incompatible." There is a lack of logical argument suporting Con's assertion that my definition is incompatible. And therefore, what can be asserted with out evidence... can be dismissed as such.

Con believes I am insulting him, but I am just debating my position and pointing out glaring flaws in Con's argument while restating my own. I am not insulting you, I am just telling you you are wrong.

Con summarized my argument as such except changed the notion of "God" into "Supernatural Atheist."
"As it is impossible to explicitly confirm evidence of supernatural attributes which practically by definition defy definitive provability. It is impossible to have knowledge of possible supernatural attributes and therefore impossible to know for certain that a supernatural atheist exists."

Then, to demonstrate his point, Con demands that I believe his supernatural atheist not only exists, but is in the same scope of relevance with the notion of God. Con says "There is no logical reasoning that one unprovable supernatural occurrence would be more likely than the other (by your incorrect interpretation of your definitions) and it cannot be deductively reasoned."

As mentioned before, Atheism can only be 1 of 2 things. a Lie, or Ignorance. But Ignorance, can be yet again reclassified as agnosticism, By using the most standard and basic definition of God , we ge... God is the creator of all things.
Therefore, all things existing are by default an evidence for God's existence. Con says we cannnot deductively reason this, but ignores the very famous and elementary Kalam Cosmological Argument that states :
Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause
https://en.wikipedia.org...

This argument is a clear deductive method of reasoning the existence of God.

Con again, without providing any real logical argument, demonstrates my point. The point that atheism is a lie. And that atheists lie about God.

Con states:
"The point is that there are small pieces of indicative evidence that god does not exist - (That every thing we investigates shows non-supernatural causes that would indicate the existence of god). "

How does Con know this? Con has done exactly what I have argued that Atheists do. He has effectively created a version of God in his mind, and determined that "small pieces of indicative evidence" CONTRADICT the plausibility of God's existence. Not only must one ASSUME that Con KNOWS who/what God even is, one must also assume little old Con (out of the 20 Billion people on the earth) must also be able to know exactly what kind of evidence to look for.

I am not saying that Con does know what to look for when looking for evidence for God. But Con is already acting like not only does he know what to look for, lhe already has looked for it, and has found nothing. Con is pretending to know.

I accepted Cons definitoin of evidence as acceptable. But Con is the one who is missing the whole point of the argument. The question is not about the definiton of Evidence. The more important question is WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU CONSIDER "VALID?".

Also, this is a restatement of my question in the previous round. That Con could not answer as I had already said he couldn't.

I will restate the question:

Con states that if God existed we probably would have found some sort of evidence. What kind of evidence (not already presented) would lead us to believe God existed ?

In answering this question. Con must provide a reasonable answer that would properly reflect reality. Con cannot assume God manifesting in the sky as a bearded man would be evidence for God. That would only be evidence for cons imaginary God. Con's evidnence that would convince him, must demonstrate an all powerful ,but also an all loving, God.

IF Con cannot answer this simple question ,,,, everything CON said in R1, R2 and R3... would become entirely irrelevant.

Thanks Con. Looking forward to your closing arguments.
Overhead

Con

I will respond in two parts. First of all I will briefly summarise the arguments against him. I will then rebut his R3 statement.

HOWEVER I just want to stress two things first. 1) PRO has accepted that he has the BoP so I don't need to posit an alternative, just show that his claim is wrong. 2) He has argued based on a logical constructs built on top of one another so if any one piece of his argument is proved wrong then his whole point collapses. I don't need to prove everything he has stated or even the majority of what he's stated wrong. If I am right about even one aspect, his argument cannot be considered valid.

Why his argument is wrong - Summary of point raised in R1 and R2

Still 100% unsupported premise
PRO's final conclusion is built upon the conclusions of each construct. Each construct conclusion is based on two premise. PRO has never offered affirmative support for his premises in any way, shape or form.

He has argued why my points against them are wrong, but he has never offered a positive argument in the first place to show they are valid. If none of his premise have any evidence to support them the logical argument fails.

His "lie" definition is wrong.
Based on the most common and relevant definitions, to lie is to deliberately deceive. PRO's C1 P1 relies on an alternative and less pertinent definition. Using the most relevant definition, the premise is false and the argument falls apart.

He proves atheists are liars, not that atheism is a lie which is the debate topic
In round 1, I actually assumed he was trying to prove that atheists are liars by claiming to know god exists despite this not being the debate title, simply because his argument in no way even attempts to prove that atheism as an ideology is a lie. However in R2 he confirmed this is what it is meant to prove.

Construct 1 and 3 (if they were correct) claim to show that a) people who claim to know if god exists are liars because they cannot know this b) Atheists claim to know if god exists. All this indicates is that atheists are liars. it does not mean that the atheism as an ideology as a whole is wrong and a lie and that a god does exist. If he wanted to link the argument he made with the argument he was meant to make, he would need at least one more construct. Instead he has a leap of logic, violating his rule that "you be logical" and disproving his conclusion as valid.

Via inductive reasoning it is possible to know if God exists.
Based on the definitions, even putting aside the ones I argue against, all that is required to know that god exists is valid evidence - not 100% categorical proof. Reasoning counts as proof and inductive reasoning, which allows us to work from likelihood, provides evidence for the lack of God.

We didn't know what caused gravity, electromagnetism, procreation, storms, the sun to rise in the morning, the planets to be formed, etc and a hundred million other things. It was possible that they were all due to god. By Pro's own admission there is no objective measure for what god is, so he could be responsible for anything and everything and each time we find that he isn't, this is another slight but incremental indication god doesn't exist. We can there inductively reason that it is unlikely god exists.

This fulfills the definition of "evidence" which in turn lets us fulfill the definition of "knowing". It CAN therefore be claimed atheists know god exists.

Pro's implicit admission C3 P2 is wrong.
C3 Premise 2 states: "disbelief or rejection of a claim is based on a lack of valid evidence and an abundance of contradictory evidence."

However this is not the definition PRO gave in R1 OR the redefinition I gave in the same round by me. Indeed in R2 PRO admits this and says "Disbelief is therefore hey rejection of a claim with or without evidence"

His claim that "disbelief is based on a lack of evidence and an abundance of contradictory evidence" is therefore incorrect by his own admission, invalidating the conclusion.

Supernatural atheist
Since it is theoretically possible that a atheist could have supernatural powers, PRO's C1P1 statement cannot be categorically 100% true. He can still make the same reasoning using slightly different inductive logic (e.g. based on all available knowledge it is very likely that no-one can know if god exists) but doing so legitimises my own inductive logic argument. Either way, his argument is shown as wrong.

Rebuttals
In fact it was just the top result on Google
No you wasn't, I've cross referenced your claim and yet again it's wrong. Proof in source. [1]

Con says my definition of Lie is incompatible but does not provide ANY argument for why.
A number list of points was included in R1 and further arguments were in R2. Pro does not address them.

(evidence for lack of god) How does Con know this?
As stated a little below the bit quoted: "This is a summary of the latter part of my R1 argument, which you have not addressed and which meets all definitions you provided."

Therefore how I know it is specifically shown and you do not reference my arguments, instead constructing a strawman. This explanation which I gave in the very first round, pointed out to you last round and which you have still not addressed also answers your later question "What kind of evidence (not already presented) would lead us to believe God existed ?"

"As mentioned before, Atheism can only be 1 of 2 things. a Lie, or Ignorance."
Which was based on a false premise. You used my statements to back this up, treating it as an admission on my part in R2 and have nothing else which supports it. But my statement was merely a couple of examples, not an exhaustive list, and therefore me making that statement does not support this conclusion.

Supernatural atheist
PRO misrepresents my argument from the start. He states: "Con demands that I believe his supernatural atheist not only exists, but is in the same scope of relevance with the notion of God"

However this is not the case. What I asked is whether he could prove he doesn't exist and posited that either a) he wouldn't be able to, meaning C1P1 is incorrect or b) he would have to do so using inductive reasoned, legitimising my inductively reasoned argument that god doesn't exist.

His point is therefore irrelevant.

He then tries to make a claim using Kalam's constant on the premise that "God is the creator of all things." and not seeming to take into account that this is a MASSIVE assumptions to make and he hasn't offered proof.

Kalam Cosmological Argument
This a deductive argument rather than an inductive argument IF the premise are true. You have not offered any argument that they are and we actually know they aren't.

Not only that, but as Hawking has stated "It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang."[1] The linkage of space and time in space-time means that cause and effect do not work without the universe, which doesn;t need a cause.

Now people a thousand years ago didn't know that, but they also didn't catergorically know that everything has a cause either. They were inferring is based on the fact that everything they knew about merely pointed towards that being true (even though they were actually wrong).

The proper inductively reasoned formulation would be:

We are aware of causes for most things that exist
The universe seems to exist
Therefore:
It is likely the universe has a cause

Once again when you take away your unsupported assumptions, you are forced to use inductive reasoning. If inductive reasoning is valid, my R1 rationale based on this stands. If not, his argument is incorrect as he cannot support his premise anyway.

[1] http://goo.gl...
[2] http://goo.gl...
Debate Round No. 3
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: random_noob// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro has a huge burden as an instigator to prove such a claim. He makes an honest effort by providing some weird definitions for the words "lie" and "disbelief". Con contests this and eventually Pro concedes the definition of disbelief. Con correctly argues that C1 P1 and C3 P2 should be proven somehow. Pro tries to shift the burden on Con. The debate revolved around if lack of evidence for something improbable is evidence for absence. Both sides made some good points here, but Pro never shows why the premises Con mentioned are true. Instead, Pro as a last resort presents a rather weak argument, that if atheists are wrong once, we can assume that everything they say is wrong, therefore God exists. And if God exists atheists are wrong (or lie). Huge burden on Pro, which was never met, arguments to Con.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The vote appears sufficient, including analysis of both debaters' arguments and the way that they perceive burdens functioning in the debate. The fact that the voter also happens to have engaged in a debate with the side he's voting against previously does not automatically showcase bias " the vote itself doesn't contain any clear bias that should require its removal.
************************************************************************
Posted by canis 8 months ago
canis
You see...
Posted by chipmonk 8 months ago
chipmonk
How do you fight against a straw god? You actually do it one after another again and again.. and you are blind to what you are even doing...

1. "In fact my logic meets your assumptions of God. "
My assumption? What assumption? I gave you a definition. Not an assumption.
Straw god number one. You did ALLL the assuming on your own. See below.

"If we can't know that qualities and relationship a hypothetical god has with the rest of the universe, they could theoretically be anything. "
-So IF we can;t know...then you are saying YOU cant know. (ergo,,"it could be anything..!") This only means that you have not properly studied or researched. Because YOU think it COULD be anything, it does not mean it IS anything. God is not "anything.' That is why i provided a basic definition for you. But you continously want to Define God as "anything." Illogical.

"Therefore each time we look into ANYTHING and find that actually, no, there is no evidence as far as we can see of god's existence or influence - that is a little tiny bit of evidence towards god not existing."
- LOL. REALLY. When you went looking for evidence of ANYTHING, you found NOTHING? What kind of evidence were you looking for ??? Are you sure it wasn;t looking for NOTHING?

"Add all those collective little bits of evidence add up to the likelihood of god not existing - meeting the definition of evidence as we can inductively reason from that basis."
Again. Assuming you defined God. Which u have not. Assuming you defined valid evidence which you have not. Assuming you defined existence . which you have not.

THEREFORE ASSUMING YOU KNOW REALITY. WHICH YOU DO NOT.
Posted by chipmonk 8 months ago
chipmonk
How do you fight against a straw god? You actually do it one after another again and again.. and you are blind to what you are even doing...

1. "In fact my logic meets your assumptions of God. "
My assumption? What assumption? I gave you a definition. Not an assumption.
Straw god number one. You did ALLL the assuming on your own. See below.

"If we can't know that qualities and relationship a hypothetical god has with the rest of the universe, they could theoretically be anything. "
-So IF we can;t know...then you are saying YOU cant know. (ergo,,"it could be anything..!") This only means that you have not properly studied or researched. Because YOU think it COULD be anything, it does not mean it IS anything. God is not "anything.' That is why i provided a basic definition for you. But you continously want to Define God as "anything." Illogical.

"Therefore each time we look into ANYTHING and find that actually, no, there is no evidence as far as we can see of god's existence or influence - that is a little tiny bit of evidence towards god not existing."
- LOL. REALLY. When you went looking for evidence of ANYTHING, you found NOTHING? What kind of evidence were you looking for ??? Are you sure it wasn;t looking for NOTHING?

"Add all those collective little bits of evidence add up to the likelihood of god not existing - meeting the definition of evidence as we can inductively reason from that basis."
Again. Assuming you defined God. Which u have not. Assuming you defined valid evidence which you have not. Assuming you defined existence . which you have not.

THEREFORE ASSUMING YOU KNOW REALITY. WHICH YOU DO NOT.
Posted by Overhead 8 months ago
Overhead
I strongly disagree on all counts and beleive there are still some points you are misrepresenting and/or not understanding, but the debate is over so I'll be waiting for the votes and concentrating on the other debates I'm currently in.
Posted by chipmonk 8 months ago
chipmonk
"You admit C1 P1 is inductive. As your logic which you never changed in the debate is deductive, it is therefore incorrect and your logical argument fails. It is not that inductive reasoning is wrong, it is that up until now in the comments you explicitly (and wrongly, as you now agree) tried to use deductive logic."

No, The way I presented my argument was not necessarily inductive or deductive. Although my intention was deductive. It could turn out that the argument was really inductive. As you correctly pointed out. It doesn't make the argument wrong. IT JUST MAKES IT AN INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT. Just because i thought it was deductive...doesnt make it so... does it?? Are you saying all inductive arguments are fallacies? Just because I think my argument is perfect, does that mean it's perfect as well? Only thing that fails is your comprehension of what inductive/deductive really means or how its applied. But you are right to point out that it COULD be a inductive argument IF we accept your claim that P1 is an inductive premise. I only conceded with you, that since YOU believe it is inductive, (I believe it is axiomatic) , I might as well acknowledge its induction, yet still assert its probability.

2) "it's that once you accept inductive logic the only barriers to my R1 inductive reasoning argument fall away by your own admission and the argument no longer holds."
- Umm. What?

You mean this?
"We have consistently failed to find evidence of God's existence
God probably doesn't exist."

This ASSUMES, you and I agree on many many many many things. It's a bigger assumption to assume you and I agree one all the definitions in your above statement (God, evidence, find, exist,). If I don't agree with your definitions of those words,..your premise is not only invalid,,it is INCOMPREHENSIBLE.

Thus , its not that I am arguing a strawman...its that YOU are. The straw God. i should say. lol.
Posted by chipmonk 8 months ago
chipmonk
"This is a tautology or circular reasoning"
IT may be a tautology but it is not circular reasoning. The reason you think can't tell the difference between a tautology and circular reasoning in this instance, is because as I have told you multiple times YOU have never properly defined God. With me, or with anyone else. You defined God on your own, without convention.

I defined God as the creator of all things. You can either accept the definition or tell me why you agree with it. You don't say that a definition is circular reasoning do we? But a definition IS a tautology.

"You use "God created everything" as a solid proven premise of reality""

Negative. I attempted to place universally accepted or rationally valid qualities onto that which is called "God." Which is to say, IF we DEFINE God as the creator of all things... all things are evidence of God." IF.

IF you define God to be something else... like an alien. Then..God is not the creator of all things. And all things are NOT evidence for God. Instead, evidence for God would consist of evidence for ALIEN or "supernatural" existence. Such as an external force that zaps life forms to make them evolve from one species to the next. You seem to be implying that such would be evidence for God, to you. I am saying that you are asking for evidence of an imaginary extra terrestrial being, often depicted in cartoons, movies, video games, etc.

What they hold to be absolute truths are only truths when the parameters of our universe are constant and set, which they aren't in a singularity OR for beings which exist outside of it."
This just sounds like you keep pretending to know things.. you simply do not know. Nor do YOU have an inkling of evidence to support such claims. You assume to know "truth". You assume to know the ancient "truth." you assume to know that "truth" is not absolute. You assume to know this is also the case for everything that exists outside spacetime. Which you don't.

Why do you a
Posted by Overhead 8 months ago
Overhead
"God being defined as the creator of all seems axiomatically sound because if God did not create all things , then why call it God?"

This is a tautology or circular reasoning. You are using the assumption that "god = creator of everything" to prove that your assumption that "god - creator of everything" is correct. This is a logical fallacy.

Moreover, you can't define god that way because of how you try and use that reasoning in the debate. if you merely wanted that as the definition of what theists believe, that would be one thing. However instead you try and use "God created everything" as a solid proven premise of reality. That is completely different an an absurd thing to assume as given based on no evidence or reasoning when it's central to this debate.

"@overhead, so much like many other atheists, u fail to properly define God on your own, which leads you to the illogical conclusion that God doesnt exist."

My argument states that is no known parameters for an actual real god, so we work from inference as presented in R1.

"If God is also defined as the creator of the universe (or everything, if u consider multiverses) then God by default exists OUTSIDE the universe, OUTSIDE spacetime, OUTSIDE the singularity and is therefore:"

Either way, Kalam's argument still fails because either way there is something without a cause so his assumption that everything has a cause is wrong..

People a thousand years ago didn't realise how relativistic physics or quantum mechanics work. What they hold to be absolute truths are only truths when the parameters of our universe are constant and set, which they aren't in a singularity OR for beings which exist outside of it.
Posted by Overhead 8 months ago
Overhead
Okay, this will be my last comment as this seems to be a continuation of the debate and all 3 rounds of that are over.

1) You admit C1 P1 is inductive. As your logic which you never changed in the debate is deductive, it is therefore incorrect and your logical argument fails. It is not that inductive reasoning is wrong, it is that up until now in the comments you explicitly (and wrongly, as you now agree) tried to use deductive logic.

2) As you admit the validity of inductive logic, this legitimises my use of inductive logic to show that atheists CAN say that they know god doesn't exist (as per the definitions provided). It's not that inductive knowledge is always irrelevant or ineligible, that's in fact the opposite of what I argued, it's that once you accept inductive logic the only barriers to my R1 inductive reasoning argument fall away by your own admission and the argument no longer holds.

3) My rationale for God's qualities was brought up in R1 where I specifically state "(please let me know if you contest it, otherwise I'll assume you concede it)"

You never argued against my reasoning directly and instead replied with things like "How does Con know this?" as a rhetorical question, and instead of then dealing with the actual argument I presented for how I know this - you argue a strawman.

In fact my logic meets your assumptions of God. If we can't know that qualities and relationship a hypothetical god has with the rest of the universe, they could theoretically be anything. Therefore each time we look into ANYTHING and find that actually, no, there is no evidence as far as we can see of god's existence or influence - that is a little tiny bit of evidence towards god not existing. Add all those collective little bits of evidence add up to the likelihood of god not existing - meeting the definition of evidence as we can inductively reason from that basis.
Posted by chipmonk 8 months ago
chipmonk
If God is also defined as the creator of the universe (or everything, if u consider multiverses) then God by default exists OUTSIDE the universe, OUTSIDE spacetime, OUTSIDE the singularity and is therefore:

1. Not a THING.

2. Not constrained by spacetime or by cause and effect relationships. Perhaps not even by logic itself. ;)

Another key word u fail to define on your own is exist. Can something "can exist" outside of spacetime? So even if God really does exist, will you define him as nonexistent, because he does not fit the criteria of existence being that which exists WITHIN the universe (spacetime)?

If not, then will you say that NOTHING "can exist" outside of spacetime?

Then will you say spacetime or the universe is eternal? And contradict all modern scientific findings such as the big bang MODEL? And its related evidence?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by random_noob 8 months ago
random_noob
chipmonkOverheadTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Pro has a huge burden as an instigator to prove such a claim. He makes an honest effort by providing some weird definitions for the words "lie" and "disbelief". Con contests this and eventually Pro concedes the definition of disbelief. Con correctly argues that C1 P1 and C3 P2 should be proven somehow. Pro tries to shift the burden on Con. The debate revolved around if lack of evidence for something improbable is evidence for absence. Both sides made some good points here, but Pro never shows why the premises Con mentioned are true. Instead, Pro as a last resort presents a rather weak argument, that if atheists are wrong once, we can assume that everything they say is wrong, therefore God exists. And if God exists atheists are wrong (or lie). Huge burden on Pro, which was never met, arguments to Con.