The Instigator
carpalfingers
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
THEBOMB
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Be it resolved that no God exists

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 2 votes the winner is...
THEBOMB
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/4/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 917 times Debate No: 20871
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

carpalfingers

Pro

Before I initiate this debate, let me set the parameters.
On the grounds of Why there is no God
4 rounds. First would be the challenge, second would be arguments, third would be rebuttals, and four would be summation.
THEBOMB

Con

I accept.

Pro must provide a proof as to why God cannot exist or they lose this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
carpalfingers

Pro

A God would simply refer to as anything believed on by religion. Any figure worshiped would be considered a god.
Before I start, let me simply imply that I am my own god in the definitional sense. I may not be in the heavens, but given hardwork, I can do anything .
God can't simply exist by the following reasons:
The concepts of omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence may be theologically true, but these concepts have been earned not through evidence, but through delusion and force.
It has been known that most gods have this attribute. But let me rebut every attribute, one by one
Omnipotence. So, all power huh? The counterargument for this is 'omnilaziness'. Simply, God may have all power, but he's too lazy to use it. Or if the negative would claim that he does, he may be using it to delude the minds of more people. Besides from the basic reasoning that if God exists, why are there problems and why can't he solve it, there's also the issue of humans being much closer to the perception of God. Cavemen may look at us as Gods, and so will we at aliens.
Omnipresence. Counterargument would be 'omniabsence'. All present, but where? Let's be a wisecrack, shall we? He may be here, he may be there, and everywhere. Around me are people. Are they all gods? So, basically, I am a God.
Omniscience. Let me pray to god and ask him who will be my wife. Another point would be omniscience would practically mean before he created the world, he should have known how much suffering would be here. So, why did he act idiotically?
Omnibenevolence? How did Satan come out?

Argument number two would regard the number of Gods world religions have. YHWH (for respect reasons), God, Allah (Allahu Akbar), Satan and so on. Who's to worship. The negative side may claim that they are all one. In that case, we then have a 'Schrodinger God', wherein we have a God whose personality is mutually disagreeing. This God would tell us that killing is both okay and not.That forgiveness can be and can't be done. So there's the point, everything disagreeing at the time.

Looking forward to my opponent's arguments.
THEBOMB

Con

I thank my opponent for his opening arguments and will begin.

Before I begin my refutations let me say my opponent is taking a rather narrow-minded approach to this debate. He states "A God would simply refer to as anything believed on by religion. Any figure worshiped would be considered a god"; he then only attempts to disprove the Judea-Christian concept of God, there are many other religions in the world, I will only go through a few.

R1. Concessions by my opponent
My opponent and I are debating whether A god can exist not whether the Christian-Judea God can exist. My opponent has made several statements conceding the resolution: "let me simply imply that I am my own god". He is saying a god does exist, himself. "Basically, I am a God". This is just obvious. The resolution is a God does not exist. My opponent is claiming they are a god. To my opponent, he is a god. Therefore, god exists.

R2. Irrelevancy of my opponent's main points applied to deism
Deism teaches the universe is the product of an omnipotent creator but, this creator neither intervenes in human affairs nor suspends the laws of the universe. In deism, god designed the universe but, then stepped back to let it run (also known as clockwork theory). Deists also believe this is all man can know about God and any other doctrines are irrelevant. God has all the power in the world but, chooses not to intervene in humanity. Even with my opponents objections the deist God can still exist as it is not omnipresent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent.

R3. Irrelevancy of my opponent's main points applied to Pantheism
Pantheism teaches the universe and god are identical. The Universe is god. None of my opponent's objections come even close to disproving this teaching as God is not a separate being in the Universe but, the Universe itself.

R4. Irrelevancy of my opponents main points to Zoroastrianism
This religion teaches there are two main gods, Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu. Neither god was ever created by anything. Ahura Mazda is all that is good. He is good, benevolent, wise, and omniscient but, not omnipotent (but, he does have the power to eventually destroy evil). Ahura Mazda is the creator of the world. Angra Mainyu is all that is evil. Your point about omnipotence is irrelevant as neither is omnipotent. Your point about omnipresence is irrelevant as neither is omnipresent. Your point about omniscience is irrelevant because why does a god have to answer you at the moment you ask? Why does God have to answer you at all? In this religion, Ahura Mazda created the world to be good but, Angra Mainyu corrupted the world and created evil. They are in a constant struggle and Zoroastrianism believes eventually Ahura Mazda will win this struggle defeating evil. The benevolence of Ahura Mazda is canceled out by the evil of Angra Mainyu.

R5. Irrelevancy applied to Panentheism
Do not mix up Pantheism with Panentheism. The first teaches the universe and god are the same. Panentheism as a whole teaches god is greater than the universe. Certain forms of panentheism teach the universe is a part of god. Once again, none of my opponents points even apply to this belief system. You cannot describe something that is outside of all description. My opponent's points fail when applied to a panentheistic God.

R6. My opponents points applied to Christianity
Since this is what my opponents points apply to I will go through each one by one.
a) Omnipotent—in Christianity, God gave man free will. This simply means God allows man to choose their own fate. Pro is stating because there are problems in the world God cannot exist. But, God gave man free will meaning man has to help themselves. Mankind cannot simply rely on God to solve every single problem.
b) Omnipresence—God exists everywhere. That's what this means. God is everywhere. I do not see how my opponent's argument against this is even relevant…
c) Omniscience—"he should have known how much suffering would be here. So, why did he act idiotically?" Well despite my opponents obvious disrespect towards Christianity, man has free-will given to them by God. It is through man's own actions that there is suffering in the world. God will not intervene on man's behalf because man has free-will. They choose their own fate.
d) Omnibenevolence—my opponent talks about Satan (kind of) saying because Satan exists god cannot be good. In reality, Satan is nothing more than the fallen angel Lucifer. Who freely chose to disobey God and was punished by being sent to Hell. Angels have free will. God is not going to force anyone or anything to love and obey Him. Man and Angels just have to accept the consequences of their actions.

R7. The problems with my opponents last argument over the numbers of Gods
First of all, YHWH is nothing more than the Hebrew "name" for God. God is the English word for God. Allah is the Arabic word for God. (Allahu Akbar literally means "God is Great"). Christianity, Judiasim, and Islam all worship the exact same God. As in identical Gods. They just have different beliefs about that one God. But, it is the same God. As for Satan, no religion believes Satan "is" God. Satanism does not believe Satan is greater than God. They just worship Satan for various reasons. Who to worship? Well every religion in the world believes they are correct. A person should worship what they believe is the correct belief. Each religion is different and has a different perspective on God, or completely different God(s) altogether. There is only one correct answer.
No religion in the world teaches killing is correct, almost every religion in the world teaches some kind of forgiveness (karma can be considered this in a way). Nothing would disagree.
Debate Round No. 2
carpalfingers

Pro

I thank my opponent for well made arguments. Here are my rebuttals.
Concessions
My opponent has refuted me by telling the condition that there is a God because I am a God. But there are two problems here. One, if I were the God he thinks I am, I would be given a definitional challenge. No religion has been made for myself, so that's one. I only implied that I am a God by the fact that I can do things people claim gods to do, but I don't get worshiped for these acts. Definition posted would simply tell that carpalfingers is not a god. He may act like one, but he's not.

Irrelevancies:
Up until now, I still don't see how irrelevancies go with the nature of these debates. The motion is Be it resolved that no god exists.'. But here comes my opponent, telling me that I did some thing wrong, like having a wrong definition of a god. My question is, So What? I mean, so what that there are alot of concepts of Gods? There are alot of religions, and he's going to define every single version that exists? And besides, I already set a motion, and he's challenging the definition I gave? I am going to make the concession that I did have the Judeo-Christian god in mind, but thinking on, I realized it applied to all gods you can think of. No, I don't think a deist god exists, nor a pantheistic god is there, since it is scientifically and technically called the Universe. No questions asked. And with Zoroastrianism, clearly, my opponent over-intellectualized this debate to such a degree that he totally missed the arguments I posted. But I have a say on the omnipotence and Angra Mainyu. Goodness is relative, so it depends on whether that goodness is in the good or bad side.
With the panentheistic god? It simply shows how confused the belief system is. We think there is a god, only to find out later that we won't know? Weird.
Now, My opponent did hit what he calls Christian arguments. Clearly, this guy is Christian. I was born atheist by the way. Now, let's rebut.
Omnipotence. One sided presentation. Even if I were to assume that there is an omnipotent god, this god would also know that all power is also bad power. So if he's talking about what omnipotence really is, it also means bad power. Also, his argument backfired on himself. If he has acknowledged that God cannot solve the problems because of us, we have seen god's end. He knows how to make trouble, but not how to end trouble. Also, if God helped Noah before, why not now?
Omnipresence. Clearly, my opponent did not read the argument regarding this. He has not even rebutted this, but let me repeat my points. If god is omnipresent, he's saying that the person everywhere is god. So simply, everyone is a God by this example. But I'm not implying that there is a god by this reason. I'm simply exposing how erroneous the concept of omnipresent is.
Omniscience. My opponent is not calm towards atheists. Maybe not even tolerant. No say on his rebuttal, but if God was truly omniscient, he wouldn't have made much mess. His disability to control us would simply tell us how bad a God really is. The beauty with atheism, ladies and gentlemen, is that we don't have to think that we are really causing our own suffering. There's just much crap in the world, so we make the best out of it.
Omnibenevolence? My point here is that if angels came from God, angels are good, but Lucifer becomes Satan, even with free will, we can say God can choose by his free will to be bad. But for no known reason, God forces himself to do good. So, God did not create free choice. He had it!
And last, his interpretations with religions.
He may not have gotten the Schrodinger's God concept. He may be both good and bad, given that there is no sure answer, or no sure true god. His say that there is one correct answer, yet many versions of the answer simply implies that there is no sure answer, because they all look the same. Like in a test, wherein the choices to the answers are all the same. So, you have to feel what is correct. The rebuttal is not there, but by the fact that humanity has not truncated god's concept up until now. We're still not sure. So in the test, there should be a none of the above, because if you look at the image of the question, it looks like the choices are fooling you. And his refutation on killing is very flawed. He's not sure. I mean, in the Torah, in some part of Leviticus, it tells you to smite this, smite that blah blah. So, no killing huh? None, but killing in the name of God is the same for me as killing.
THEBOMB

Con

I thank my opponent and shall continue as such.

D1. Concessions

My opponent admits they made these statements so all I have to do is find a religion which worships man. Let me first begin by defining anthropolatry as the worship of human beings. My opponent by proclaiming himself god is making anthropolatric comments about himself, in saying he is God. My opponent cannot be an atheist because he is stating he is God. In fact, according to your broad definition of God, religion is defined as the worship of a deity, Marxism therefore can be considered a religion. Karl Marx taught "Man is God." Marxism teaches anthropolatry. My opponent, by stating they are god is affirming the existence of a god, in the form of man. (1) There is a religion, according to the definition agreed upon in Round 1, which holds man to be God.

D2. Irrelevancies
I never told my opponent they had a wrong definition of god. I only said my opponent "is taking a rather narrow-minded approach" to this debate. My opponent is really only considering a god which has the characteristics of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, omnibenevolence. There are hundreds of other versions of god. They have not attempted to disprove any other who may not have these characteristics above. The resolution is "Be it resolved that no God exists" as in no conception of god can exist. There are other conceptions of god as I have pointed out. Their definition is not incorrect, we both agreed to it. I am not challenging the definition, the definition of god is: "Any figure worshiped would be considered a god." Any worshipped figure is a god. I have not challenged this at all. I have merely pointed out other figures worshipped.

a) Deism
"Deism teaches the universe is the product of an omnipotent creator but, this creator neither intervenes in human affairs nor suspends the laws of the universe. In deism, god designed the universe but, then stepped back to let it run (also known as clockwork theory). Deists also believe this is all man can know about God and any other doctrines are irrelevant. God has all the power in the world but, chooses not to intervene in humanity. Even with my opponents objections the deist God can still exist as it is not omnipresent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent." (2) Their only argument against deism is "it is scientifically and technically called the Universe". But, deists do not believe god is the universe. They merrily believed god created the universe and does not interfere with his own creation. My opponent has not disproven the deist conception of god.

b) Pantheism
My opponent objects to pantheism the same way they object to deism. That the universe "is scientifically and technically called the Universe" but, pantheists do not object to this point. Rather they believe the Universe and god are one in the same. (The Universe is god, god is the Universe.) The fact the Universe is scientifically called the Universe is irrelevant. Something can have two names.

c) Zoroastrianism
In this religion there is a clearly spelled out good and evil. "Ahura Mazda is all that is good" while "Angra Mainyu is all that is evil". Neither are omnipotent only having the power to vanquish the other side and they are in an eternal struggle." Ahura Mazda created the world to be good but, Angra Mainyu corrupted the world and created evil". They are on two completely opposite sides of the "god evil spectrum". The goodness and evil in each are relative to each other. My opponent has not disproven these god's at all.

d) Panentheism
My opponent has not even objected to this belief system. Panentheism is a completely DIFFERENT belief system than pantheism. While similar they have a striking difference which my opponent completely overlooked.

e) Christianity
Omnipotence—My opponent misconstrues my argument. God could solve the problems of the world but, chooses not to because God gave man free will. God did not help Noah, God merely told Noah a flood was coming and told Noah to build an ark, Noah could have freely chosen to not build this ark and God would have done nothing. And why is all power bad power?

Omnipresence—I read your argument, several times in fact. It just made no sense. By definition, the Christian God is everywhere. You cannot argue that he is nowhere. God is singular. Persons are plural. PEOPLE are everywhere but, not a singular PERSON.

Omniscience—I do not understand how I am uncalm towards atheists. I am merely stating the Christian doctrine on God and free-will. God created man, gave them the tools they needed to make a "good" decision. Sent His son to save man. God allows humans to freely choose their own fate for themselves. God did not create the mess. Man created the mess.

Omnibenevolence—By definition the Christian God is good. By definition, angels have free will. Angels freely choose whether to be good or bad. God allowed man to freely choose whether to be good or bad. God allowed angels to choose whether to be good or bad.

D3. Different religions
There is one correct answer. In each religion, god has differences. So, to use my opponents test analogy, it would be like taking a test in which all the answers are slightly different. They are distinguishable from one another. And there is one correct answer. You can choose one. Whether it is the correct or incorrect version is to be seen. You cite Judaism to say God says killing is correct, but, you can also cite the Ten Commandments which say killing is wrong. The Ten Commandments are the basis of most morality. Therefore, killing is wrong according to Judaism. Killing in the name of God does not make killing right.

My opponent has failed to disprove god in fact, conceding that to him god does exist, man.

1. http://people.bu.edu...
2. Round 2 of this debate
Debate Round No. 3
carpalfingers

Pro

carpalfingers forfeited this round.
THEBOMB

Con

sadly my opponent has forfeited this debate. I have nothing more to say.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by carpalfingers 5 years ago
carpalfingers
The debate shall start once someone has accepted.
Posted by Sapiens 5 years ago
Sapiens
"who has BOP?"

Obviously pro in this case.
Define 'God' first, then I might even join the debate.
Posted by Oldfrith 5 years ago
Oldfrith
who has BOP?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
carpalfingersTHEBOMBTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for FF. Con had stronger refutations and stronger more explained arguments. Also he used sources making him more reliable. Also his reasoning was more logical and complete.
Vote Placed by lannan13 5 years ago
lannan13
carpalfingersTHEBOMBTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro needs to work on structure!!! Con is indeed THEBOMB