Atheism or Theism
| Started: | 2/25/2012 | Category: | Religion |
| Updated: | 1 year ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 690 times | Debate No: | 21484 |
|
=====> Introduction <====== Just a quick note to my partner, and the readers, all of my sources are found here http://www.debate.org...
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 :-) I thank Microsuck for issuing this challenge, and I accept the terms set forth in his opening round. However, the existence of something cannot be put into a percentage. Either I exist or I don't. Either God exists or He doesn't. So I'd like to revise the definition of "improbable" to mean it is unlikely that such a God exists. Therefore, as instigator Pro must cast reasonable doubt upon the existence of God (or a god). It will be my job to show why Pro's arguments do not cast reasonable doubt on the existence of God. I look forward to an interesting debate. |
![]() |
|||||||||||||||||
|
=====> Introduction <====== I like to thank keytar hero for accepting this debate. I also wish to remind him (and the audience) that it is simply not enough for KeytarHero to refute my arguments--he needs to also prove that it is likely that such a God exists (hence the term "on balance of probability"). Likewise, it is simply not enough for me to refute his arguments. =====> Abstract<====== The existence of God has always been a major part of philosophy. However, the standard definition of God is unlikey. I am defending two contentions: (1) There are no good reasons to believe in God; and (2) The non-believe in God is warrented. =====> Opening Arguments <====== C1) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence 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] Premise 3 states, “Therefore, in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim that a god exists may be considered false.” We now need to ask ourselves two questions: 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. So, what type of evidence is there for God? I contend that there is no evidence; it will be my partner's burden to prove so. In the words of Keith Augustine: "God, as conceived by the major religions, does not exist. I hold this neither dogmatically, nor as an article of faith. Rather, I think the existence of the Judeo-Christian/Islamic God is as improbable as the existence of Zeus and the plethora of Olympian gods. I am simply more consistent in my skepticism. I have the same amount of evidence for the existence of Yahweh, Jehovah, or Allah as I have for Zeus--none." [5] C2) Incoherent attributes argument 1. Anything that has contradictory attributes cannot exist. 2. God has contradictory attributes. 3. Therefore, God cannot exist. We are debating a Judeo-Christian type God, so before we go any further, one must need to know what the Judeo-Christian type God is:
A contradiction is by definition two or more propositions that are incompatible with each other; [7] therefore, if God is self-contradictory, how can He exist? We know that the Invisible Pink unicorn cannot exist because it is impossible to be both invisible and pink; and invisble and cognative (namely, the shape and feel of a unicorn; whatever that might mean). Now, you may notice something: Those attributes are contradictory. If God is ineffable, and incomprehensible, then this seems to contradict the other attributes; for how can the attributes of God be known if He is ineffable and incomprehensible? Consider: 1. If God cannot be known or understood, then his attributes cannot be known. 2. God cannot be known and understood. 3. Therefore, his attribues cannot be known. There are more contradictions than just that,; for if God is all knowing, then it is impossible for him to change the future; if He is all-just, then he cannot be merciful. We get the picture. Paul Tobin points out: Thus the characteristics of God as supplied by Christian theologians are nothing more than meaningless and contradictory concepts wrapped in theological garb. [8] In his essay, Why I am not a Christian, Richard Carrier notes: So, we see; atheism predicts exactly that; namely, that life is an accident and that there should be more failed attempts than successful attempts; that is exactly what we see. As it turns out, I don't have the time to research this and come up with an argument. I do apologize to the instigator but I must forfeit this debate. I just have too much going on at the moment. Sometime in the future I may debate this again. |
![]() |
|||||||||||||||||
|
My partner has forfeited this debate. I thank my partner for taking his time to read this; hopefully we will do this in the future.
|
![]() |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Good debate.
|
![]() |
|||||||||||||||||
![]() |


| Microsuck | KeytarHero | 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: | 4 | 0 |
| Microsuck | KeytarHero | 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: | 6 | 1 |
| Microsuck | KeytarHero | 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: | 6 | 1 |










