Atheism or Theism
| Started: | 2/23/2012 | Category: | Religion |
| Updated: | 1 year ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 1,297 times | Debate No: | 21336 |
 Pro =====> Introduction <====== The time limit between replies is 72 hours. If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. If one side explicitly concedes or violates any of these terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other. By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms. Good luck :-)  Con I do see some problems possibly stemming from the defined god. I would prefer one more clearly defined as to its specific attributes & actions. For my purposes, I am planning on god based on a creator god possessing omnipotence and omniscience but not the one whose actions are necessarily described by the Christian Bible. |
 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Pro I wish to welcome my partner to debate.org, I see you are a new member. The Argument Formulated The argument is arranged as follows[1]: 1. If a claim is extraordinary, then in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim may be considered false. In order to understand this argument, we need to define an extraordinary claim. I will define an extraordinary claim as: A claim that contradicts accepted physical laws or our common sense, everyday experiences of the world.[2] So, the question is, ‘Is God an extraordinary claim?” I contend to you that indeed, it is. Let’s take a look at this chart that I have drawn up.
As one can see from this chart, God has attributes much different than man; indeed, God is incomprehensible compared to man.[3] 1) Why is one justified in rejecting extraordinary claims in the absence of extraordinary evidence? 2) What is the basis of extraordinary evidence? Allow me to give you the following propositions and ask yourself “which one do you immediately reject, and why?” 1) I am a member of Facebook, 2) I won the multi-million dollar lottery, and 3) I own a transportation mechanism that transports you from point A to point B in under 1 second. Which one do you immediately reject without further ado, and why? If you guessed point 3, you would be correct—and totally justified in rejecting proposition 3. Allow me to explain why. According to Facebook stats, Facbeook currently have 350,000,000 members[4] hence, to claim that I am a member of Facebook is not unheard of, nor is it an extraordinary claim. Claim 2 is certainly more extraordinary than the first; however, people have won the lottery before so it is not unheard of—in order for one to accept this claim, one may need to look at just my lottery ticket, or the numbers on TV. However, claim 3 is quite different. In order to accept claim 3 with just my word, you will have to: 1) Change your current views on the technology of today, 2) Change your views on how people transport from point A to point B, and 3) Change your perspective on the person making such a ridiculous claim (and ridiculous is quite appropriate). So, you see, extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence; though what is extraordinary evidence? I contend that evidence is subjective. What is evidence? Evidence is the kind of think which can make a difference to what one is justified in believing or what is reasonable to believe.[5] Therefore, in lack of a justification for a faith, one is justified in rejecting it. It is all up to each individual to decide what one is justified in believing based upon the evidence presented. What evidence is there for God? In my opinion, the answer would be none. The basis of this book lies in premise 4, namely, “there is no extraordinarily strong evidence in favor of God’s existence.” In order to prove premise 4, I will refute common arguments presented in favor of Theism, and also, will be presenting atheological arguments for the Non-Existence of God. Contention 2: The Divine Hiddenness Argument There are many more Muslims than Christians than Saudi Arabia, many more Catholics in Ireland than Vietnam, and a very small ratio of Theists to pagans two and a half thousand years ago.
Contention 3: Theism predicts a different universe Science is all about predictions; however, the Theist hypothesis actually predicts a completely different universe than the one we find ourselves in. If God is truly perfect, and created this universe for the sole purpose of providing a home for human beings, and to bring his salvation plan to fulfillment; then he would never have invented this universe, but something quite different. However, the universe we find ourselves in is exactly the type of Universe one would expect if there truly was no God. The argument formulated 1) If Atheism better predicts the universe we find ourselves in than Theism, then one is justified in accepting an atheistic belief over a Theistic one. 2) Atheism better predicts the universe we find ourselves in. 3) Therefore, one is justified in accepting an atheistic belief over a Theistic one. First, one must wonder, what type of universe is predicted by Atheism and Theism? Well, if life (as Atheists argue) is just ordinary chance and one without a plan, then one would expect us to find life as a lottery game; and indeed, that is exactly what we see. In his essay, Why I am Not a Christian, Richard Carrier notes: Suppose there is no God. If that is the case, then the origin of life must be a random accident. Christians rightly point out that the appearance of the first living organism is an extremely improbable accident. Of course, so is winning a lottery, and yet lotteries are routinely won. Why? Because the laws of probability entail the odds of winning a lottery depend not just on how unlikely a win is.[10] Indeed, life is a lottery game. Consider the following statistics: 1) Over 700 extra-solar planets and solar systems have been found.[11] 2) Our Universe is 13 billion light years across—at least.[12] 3) In our solar system, we have 8 planets. 4) There are 125 billion galaxies.[13] 5) Earth is the only known planet with life. This indeed sounds a lot like a lottery game: not something that is suitable for life; in fact, as Lee Smolion points out, “our universe is probably the most perfect universe that could ever be arranged for producing black holes. [14] Conclusion I conclude that on balance of probability, there is no God. I look forward to my partner’s reply. May the best arguments win. Con My opponent has already lost this debate. First off, he needs to prove that the existence of God has less than 50% odds. Yet, how could one calculate such odds in the first place? Simply put, we can never know. We can rule out some specifically defined gods, like Zeus was disproved (<50%) when the first man climbed Mount Olympus and found it vacant. However, an omniscient/omnipotent god of a finite universe cannot be disproved. Indeed, we can question whether or not our view of reality is true. Perhaps we are in the Matrix or a brain in a vat being fed an illusionary cosmos. How can we accurately determine that our reality is true? What are the odds of that? If we cannot accurately gauge that, then we also cannot accurately gauge the odds of a creator god either. However, some mathematicians have attempted to calculate such odds and I freely admit that I am not a master of statistical math. So, to rely on an expert, the physicist Stephen Unwin calculated the odds of God's existence and concluded "The probability that God exists is 67%." (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Refutation of Contention #2. My opponent states that the demographics of religious belief point against a god. This makes no sense. First, we do not know if any of those belief systems are true. Perhaps Christians are correct, or ancient Babylonians, or Muslims. Perhaps none of them are. Perhaps the true religion has not been handed down to us yet. Perhaps God is not in direct contact with us at all. To quote my opponent, "indeed, God is incomprehensible compared to man." If we do not comprehend him, then how can we comprehend any plans he has for us? This also leads into a refutation of his Contention #3. Perfection, outside of mathematics, is entirely subjective. A perfect candy bar for you would not be perfect to me. If we are unable to comprehend a perfect objectively defined God, then how can we predict what a perfect universe would be like in his eyes? Before my opponent brings up the problem of evil, let me point out Round 1 of this debate. I agreed to debate the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient creator being. Not an all-loving being. Indeed, the religions he later mentions (Islam & Christianity) point AGAINST an all-benevolent being. I agree with my opponent that an atheistic/natural universe could predict our universe. But again, my opponent stated that God is incomprehensible. How can you possibly predict what a theistically-created universe would be like if you cannot comprehend the mind of the creator? I pointed out previously that perhaps no organized religion is true... so, what could you say about the universe that an omniscient and omnipotent being would design? Perhaps he wanted to create a universe that was good at manufacturing black holes. Perhaps he has a use for them. We cannot say and because of that, we cannot use my opponent's argument. As side notes:Premise 3, "Therefore, in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim that a god exists may be considered false." Absence of evidence does not equal absence of existence. His example of a teleportation device equaling false is also flawed. Once upon a time, the idea that disease was caused by animals so small we couldn't see and that preyed upon us would have been regarded as insane. Evidence for bacteria was always there, we just didn't know how to look for it prior to developing microscopes and the proper experiments/data sets. |
 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Pro =====> Introduction <======
I thank my partner for his opening arguments. He barely touched any of my arguments, though he did make a few points worth noting in this rebuttal round. =====> Rebuttal <====== My partner notes Stephen D. Unwin's attempt at showing the probability of God; unfortunately this is a huge error on his part: (1) It is an appeal to authority [1] and (2) My partner cut Unwin's quote short. This is the full quote: "this number has a subjective element since it reflects my assessment of the evidence." [2] So, how do we weigh the evidence? Simple: The Burden of Proof is on the theist to show that God exists. Remember, the BoP is ALWAYS on the person affirming God's existence; not the other way around. Therefore, we can weigh the atheist/theist argument to see which position is most probable; and in my biased opinion, I believe that Atheism is the most probable--especially because my partner refuted absolutely nothing. Presupposition of Atheism My partner does not refute this at all; therefore, I ask that you extend this argument. This argument, though untouched, does make an interesting point: It is justified to reject the belief in a God. Because God wants us to "love him maximally", it logically follows one must believe in a being in order to "love one maximally." RRC2) Demographics of Theism My opponent states that the demographics of religious belief point against a god. This makes no sense. First, we do not know if any of those belief systems are true. Perhaps Christians are correct, or ancient Babylonians, or Muslims. Perhaps none of them are. Perhaps the true religion has not been handed down to us yet. Perhaps God is not in direct contact with us at all. To quote my opponent, For those that do not understand, let us point to this argument map [3]:  This actually is incriminating to my opponent's argument. This argument may be better formulated by Dr. Theodore Drange [4]: Consider, first, these two definitions: The gospel message = the following three propositions: (a) There exists a being who rules the entire universe. Situation S = the situation of all, or almost all, humans since the time of Jesus (or a certain point) coming to believe both all three propositions of the gospel message by the time of their physical death. Using the above definitions, ANB may be formulated as follows: (A) If the God of cassic Theism were to exist, then he would have caused situation S to obtain. It is interesting to note the reply of the Christian that he was debating: [5] I have to confess that, as far as I am concerned, it presents a formidable challenge to those Christians who hold to the premises outlined by Dr. Drange. I cannot imagine how an Arminian Christian would answer the challenge he presents. Remember: I have shown that the demographics of Theism are better explained by Atheism than Theism; hence, there is a better probability of atheism over Theism. RRC3) Theism predicts a different Universe In my final argument, I argued that Theism predicts an entirely differnt universe we find ourselves in. It is interesting to note my parnter's reply: "I agree with my opponent that an atheistic/natural universe could predict our universe." Because of this, I believe I have already won this debate; namely, I have shown once again that atheism is more probable than Theism. My partner asks a ridiculous question: How can you possibly predict what a theistically-created universe would be like if you cannot comprehend the mind of the creator? I must concede that we cannot--however, we must consider the evidence given to us by this "perfect-wise-Creator" and must pause to wonder "Why would a perfect, sinless God be deceptive?" If there is a God, he certainly would never be deceptive! For now, the evidence points to the fact that there is probably no God. Sidebar note As side notes:Premise 3, "Therefore, in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim that a god exists may be considered false." Absence of evidence does not equal absence of existence. My partner is correct--absence of evidence=/=absence of existence. Remember how I defined extraordinary claim. I am even wondering if my partner even bothered to read my opening response. " Once upon a time, the idea that disease was caused by animals so small we couldn't see and that preyed upon us would have been regarded as insane." This is correct, and until that evidence was presented to them, they had all the justification for rejecting it. Remember proposition S: If God loves all humanity, then he would want to have a relationship with each and every human (thus the term, all-loving); how can God be all loving and neglect to give us evidence of His existence? Likewise, how can God be all-loving and let us believe lies? It makes virtually no sense. Conclusion 1) My partner refuts almost nothing what I said. 2) In my partner's opening response, he has not shown at all any probable evidence pointing to God's existence, 3) I have shown that the demographics of Theism predict Atheism over Theism. _________________________________ Reference http://www.debate.org...; Con I did read my opponent's arguments and successfully refuted them. I am angered that he chose to introduce arguments that do not belong in our debate. He opened his argument with, "For the purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined broadly as to include the general attributes (ie: omnipotence, omniscience) commonly associated with Judeo-Christian monotheism. This definition primarily concerns general revelation, and hence forms of religion are irrelevant. We are debating a judeo-Christian type God." When I accepted this debate, I stated, "I do see some problems possibly stemming from the defined god. I would prefer one more clearly defined as to its specific attributes & actions. For my purposes, I am planning on god based on a creator god possessing omnipotence and omniscience but not the one whose actions are necessarily described by the Christian Bible." Nowhere in our opening discussions was anything said about a benevolent deity by either of us. In fact, there are many references in the Quran, the Bible, etc... that such monotheistic deities are anything but benevolent. In round 2, I predicted that my opponent would attempt to bring in the "Problem of Evil". In round 3, we see him ask, "that you extend this argument... Because God wants us to 'love him maximally'." He is merely building a strawman fallacy-based argument. Therefore, any and all of his arguments that hinge on a all-benevolent god are outside the realm of our debate and should just be ejected from the discussion. My opponent charges that I did not respond to his arguments. This is untrue. His first argument states that I need to provide extraordinary evidence and that without extraordinary evidence, a claim can be considered false. I responded that absence of evidence does not equal absence of existence and gave the example of microscopic bacteria. His argument was refuted and my opponent agreed as such in the next round, "My partner is correct--absence of evidence=/=absence of existence.", but added with a reference to the strawman of a loving god. I view his argument as successfully refuted as per "loving" was not part of the initially agreed upon Godlike qualities. I pointed out the problems with his demographic argument, namely, we do not know if any of those belief systems are true and that my opponent stated that God would be incomprehensible and therefore we cannot predict what a created universe would be like. My opponent conceded that point, "I must concede that we cannot", but otherwise blatantly ignored my response and again used his "loving-God" strawman via Dr Drange's argument. So, when my opponent asked readers to remember that he showed demographics are better explained by atheism... he is committing a falsehood! (This is just one of the falsehoods he has so far committed. (1 saying I did not respond his arguments, which I have easily shown to be false, he conceded my refutations several times. 2 stating that his demographic argument was true which was false. 3 that Burden of Proof falls on the theist at all times to prove that God exists. This is false. It depends on the issue being debated. For example, a debate regarding how strong Samson via an estimation of pounds lifted does not require the proponent to prove Samson actually existed).) My opponent's argument regarding demographics is a strange one. It is meaningless unless he proves that a God is true. I maintained that all of those religions could possibly be false and that seeing (as my opponent maintained) that God is incomprehensible to us, we cannot predict what a universe created by such would resemble. It could easily resemble a naturally occurring universe. My opponent responded, "I must concede that we cannot--however, we must consider the evidence given to us by this "perfect-wise-Creator" (Please note that my pro-atheist opponent just acknowledged that God provided evidence for his existence). Now, as to my argument. My opponent has not stipulated any means to calculate the odds for God's existence. He is maintaining a mathematical statement without wanting to show his work. I supplied a cited source which stipulated the odds being 67%. My opponent argued against this number, while so far been incapable of providing his own. Please note, even while I was pointing out the 67% number, I stipulated that I thought the odds were 50%. God may/may not exist. A 50% finding means my position was vindicated. Right now, that is the only figure on the table. I argued that our perceived reality might not be the true reality and that assigning probability to such things as a creator is an exercise in futility. My opponent has not responded to this. In sum, I have successfully refuted my opponent's arguments and received concessions from him regarding this. His statement that I have not responded to them is a blatant falsehood. My opponent has been and continues to attempt to build a strawman argument regarding an all-benevolent deity. This is outside the scope of our debate and I am disregarding any of those arguments other than calling his use of them. I maintain there is a 50% chance of God existing. I did provide a source stating 67%, but regard 50% as more solid. My opponent has done nothing to try and describe any mathematical reasoning for a lower probability number. I ask readers of this debate to please do not fall prey to his use of fancy flowcharts and convoluted reasoning. Look at the arguments and refutations, look at the use of falsehoods and fallacies used during the debate. |
 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Pro =====> Introduction <======
Through this debate, I am incredibly disapointed that my partner has brought up absolutely no evidence that God exists. The resolution is "On balance of probability, the existence of God is improbable." The phrase "on balance of probability" means that the burden of proof is shared; namely, that it is not enough for my partner to simply refute my arguments--he needs to show that God is probable of existing rather than not; unfortunately, he has not done that. =====> Final Rebuttals <====== "Nowhere in our opening discussions was anything said about a benevolent deity by either of us." Wrong. Let's take another look at my definition of God. "God" will be defined broadly as to include the general attributes (ie: omnipotence, omniscience) commonly associated with Judeo-Christian monotheism. So, what are the general attributes? Omnibenevolence is one of them. The phrase "i.e." means "In other words", or "For example." This does not mean that omnipotence and omniscience are only the attributes agreed upon; this is semantics. =====> Final Statements <====== In round 1, I have presented several key arguments:
Con
IN CONCLUSION, My opponent has not offered any unrefuted evidence or arguments towards God not existing. In fact, his very statements have contradicted his own arguments (i.e. God is incomprehensible by man & evidence is subjective). Readers should not find in favor of him or that the odds of God existing is 49% or less. On the other side, I have offered an expert who found probability of God's existence at 67%. I have explained why my opponent's arguments against this finding are flawed. Regardless, you do not have to accept this figure to vote for me. If you think, after having read the debate) that the odds are AT LEAST 50% OR MORE IN FAVOR OF GOD EXISTING, then I have won and I ask that you vote in favor of me.
|
 |
| Microsuck | Braaainz | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: |  | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
It is bad to try to shift the burden of proof. If pro wanted a shared burden of proof, he should make that clear from the getgo, not spring it on us late in the debate based on a dubious argument. Make it crystal clear in your first post, before anyone accepts the debate.
Pro argues that theistic claims are so extraordinary as to be presumptively false. Con says, in effect, that they are no less likely than Pro owning a teleport device, which is a lot like a concession, given that Pro presumptively does not own a teleport. The odds of Pro owning a teleport are less than 50%.
Con says absence of evidence does not equal absence of existence, which is true. However---without equaling nonexistence---it can be evidence of evidence of non-existence. Absence of evidence is evidence of nonexistence in any case in which existence would be predicted to entail evidence of existence. Pro offered reasons to believe that and existent god would be evidenced. Therefore, in the absence of evidence, it seems unlikely that god exists: The likelihood is less that 50%.