The Instigator
mr-natural
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
unitedandy
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Debating gods existence is futile

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 4 votes the winner is...
unitedandy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/27/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,043 times Debate No: 19510
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

mr-natural

Pro

It is pointless and utterly futile to debate an issue with no answer. The god debate is in a rut. It has dug itself into a hole of overused, outdated, child like arguments which will never get anywhere. Even the greatest intellects haven't made any progress. I think its true to say that both sides are wholly influenced by personal preferences and beliefs.

We could argue all day about cosmological argument this, and historical accuracy of Jesus, blah blah blah, but where are we getting? And who cares? More should be done to stop hate, extremism, hate crimes, and ignorance, but arguing about dumb arguments for gods existence that most people with half a brain figured out as teenagers wont help. we need inspirational people with ideas people!!!!

And finally, science will open our hearts and minds. Not a 2000 year old collection of tribal scribblings.
unitedandy

Con

Introduction

First, I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome Pro to the site. As perhaps the single worst offender of ‘rehashing the God debate’, I thought I’d look past the irony of Pro debating a topic he thinks is futile, and give a defence of participating in discussions over traditional arguments for and against the existence of God. In my first round, I’ll take what I consider the main themes of Pro’s post, and respond to each of the points he makes.

The progress of the God debate

Pro’s debate that the arguments concerning God’s existence have not made any progress is just absurd. To use one example, the problem of evil, my own favourite argument in this context, has undergone tremendous change. The popularly formulated version of the argument (the logical PoE) for example is widely thought to have been refuted by Alvin Plantinga. As defender of the logical PoE J.L Mackie writes,

“Since this defense is formally [that is, logically] possible, and its principle involves no real abandonment of our ordinary view of the opposition between good and evil, we can concede that the problem of evil does not, after all, show that the central doctrines of theism are logically inconsistent with one another. But whether this offers a real solution of the problem is another question.” (1)

What does this tell us, and why is it relevant? Well, it shows, that there is indeed progress in these sorts of arguments. Indeed, the PoE remains relevant because it has been further developed by philosophers (such as Rowe, 1979) to withstand common criticisms. This is relevant because if these arguments can be developed, refined, and even dissolved, it certainly follows that the agnosticism of Pro may be a conclusion which would be undermined. In fact, pretty much all the arguments in this area can be and have been developed in a similar way. These developments must have the capacity to make either atheism or theism more reasonable, unless one subscribes to hard agnosticism, but I don’t really see how one could justify such a position. In any case, the theistic concept of God seems to be a God would have a marked influence in the world.

If progress is even possible in this area, it seems that hard agnosticism simply isn’t warranted. Obviously, there has been massive progress, not just in developing old arguments, but in establishing new areas to discuss. Also, work in this area does often engage with science, despite Pro’s claim. Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism, for example, tries to establish that if evolution and naturalism are true, then we have an epistemic defeater for our beliefs. Clearly, if scientists want to engage with the logical consequences of their own views, then they would be spending quite a bit of time discussing points relevant to the philosophy of religion, so even science will inevitably lead back to this area in certain cases.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Pro has not even tried to justify hard agnosticism (which he has to), has merely asserted the God debate to be “in a rut”, and will have to respond to both the progress in the philosophy of religion and the tendency of popular science to get embroiled in such debates (i.e. Dawkins, Hawking, Atkins). Unless, and until he does this, it is safe to conclude that these arguments are far from futile.

Sources

1) http://www.iep.utm.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
mr-natural

Pro

mr-natural forfeited this round.
unitedandy

Con

Unfortunately, Pro has yet to respond to what I regard as the only real argument in the debate, and as such there is little for me to add at this point. Given his forfeit in the last round, I'm hesitant to add to the debate, and will just be content with the argument I have produced in my opening round.

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
mr-natural

Pro

mr-natural forfeited this round.
unitedandy

Con

It seems Pro has again failed to post.

Extend all arguments.

Debate Round No. 3
mr-natural

Pro

mr-natural forfeited this round.
unitedandy

Con

Pro has yet again failed to respond, and has forfeited 3 rounds.

There's nothing I can do except to apologise to the readers in advance.

Vote con!
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by mr-natural 5 years ago
mr-natural
to whom it may concern, i didn't post any arguments because of a family death, which takes priority over an internet debate. also, i realise that my argument was very stupid, and unitedandy said some very convincing things. i guess thats the point of this website. live long and prosper.
Posted by Leftii 5 years ago
Leftii
:L Only nerds such as myself find humour in such things
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
mr-naturalunitedandyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Mr-natural not only posted an ironic debate (debating about god even when declaring it to be futile) but, by virtue of unitedandy's arguments, was shown to be fallacious: there was PROGRESS in the theological debate, as demonstrated in the changes and revisions in the problem of evil, and indeed science is not entirely separate from the debate. Pro's forfeits, apparently due to an inability to respond, lost him conduct.
Vote Placed by Boogerdoctor 5 years ago
Boogerdoctor
mr-naturalunitedandyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Forfeit
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
mr-naturalunitedandyTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by caveat 5 years ago
caveat
mr-naturalunitedandyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Complete forfeit by Pro. All but SG to Con. Interesting read in Con's R1. I must admit that I lurked Con's past PoE debates before having an account and they were a large reason why I joined DDO. (: