The Instigator
tala00131
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
wiploc
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Dose God Exist

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 4 votes the winner is...
wiploc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,384 times Debate No: 31416
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

tala00131

Con

I have broken down my argument into three parts. One Improbability, two Stupid design, three the problome of evil.

Number one improbability: There is no evidience for God, one could give you alot of semi evidence such as the cosmogical argument but there is no physical evidence. Not only is there no evidence for God but it is highly improbable that such a being exists. Think about it someone that is so complex that he can hear all of our prayres at once and read our thoughts ect, has to be much more complex than us therefor making his existence very improbable. Complex beings only come from evolution, complex beings do not simply always exist.

Number two Stupid Design: Most spots in the universe would kill life instintly, pepole say well the forces of nature are just right for life thats just stupid go look at the volume of the universe where you can't live. Most planet orbits are unstable, the star formation is inefficent, we are on a one way expanding universe to nothing, all of the other planets in our solar system are dead. Now let me move on to earth. Volcanos, tusnamis, earth quakes, floods, lightning kill 150,000 pepole each year, there is so much disese, 99.9% of all species to ever live went extinct, it took 3-5 billion years to make multi cellular life.

Number three the problome of evil: There is so much suffering and evil going around the world right now, as we speek one child is dieing every four seconds. 21,000 children around the world die each day. Most children will die before there fith birthday. These are just a few examples of all of the suffering that is going on around the world. If you believe in a good God than you are faced with the problome of why there is so much evil in the world, then pepole say there is so much good in the world and God must have a plan for all of this suffering. If you believe in an evil God then you are faced with the problome of why there is so much good in the world and pepole say well I am sure that God has a plan for all of this good in the world. So either you believe in no God or you believe in an evil God or you believe in a good God. If you believe in no God you are not faced with any problomes, if you believe in a evil God you are faced with the problome of why there is so much good in the world, if you believe in a good God you are faced with the problome of why there is so much evil in the world. Givin all of the evil in the world it is unlikely that a good God exists. Givin all of the good in the world it is unlikely that an evil God exists so it is unlikley that God exists.

Conclusion: I have given three good arguments to think that God dose not exist, if my opponent is to try to say that God dose exist he must first tare down all of the three arguments that I have presented and then give his own arguments to say that God exists.

http://www.globalissues.org...

http://www.youtube.com...#
wiploc

Pro

Firstguy has the burden of proof. He has undertaken to prove that gods do not exist. He has failed to meet that burden. Vote Pro. (I'm Pro, even though I'm going second, I'm Pro, because Firstguy named us backwards and I can't change it. If you're confused, it's his fault. I'm Pro even though he issued the challenge and argued first and so has the burden of proof.) Vote Pro. (Me.)

Probability: Probability is statistics. If Pro looked at a great many universes, and determined what percentage of them have gods, then he could make legitimate claims about probability. Otherwise, not.

Pro claims there is no evidence of god. That's not true. How could you have gotten started without me? How would you justify the morality that you believe in in my absence? Doesn't the modal ontological argument prove that I exist? Why would you have all these crazy conflicting religions if I weren't real? Have you seen the pictures of that face on mars? Why, but for me, don't the people on the bottom of the world fall off? What about the peacock's tail, huh? And irreducible complexity. And all of those stars in the night sky, put there just for your awe? How do you account for them? Even Sagan was awed by them. How do you account for order in the universe, all those endlessly perturbing ellipses, if not for me?

But, back to the subject at hand: Firstguy claims that a lack of evidence makes gods improbable. That doesn't work. Many things are unevidenced but true. You know this. On his thirteenth birthday, George Washington had an even number of butt hairs. Or odd. One of those is true. One of those is true, but there is no evidence either way. The lack of evidence doesn't make the true one statistically improbable. And neither would the lack of evidence for god (if there were a lack) make me improbable.

Firstguy makes a fuzzy argument about complexity. That argument works as a rebuttal to a particular theist argument. It's a good rebuttal, but it doesn't stand on its own. And it doesn't have anything to do with probability.

That's all. Firstguy made three arguments under the heading of probability. None of them begins to work.

Stupid Design:

Death everywhere. Decaying orbits everywhere (so much so that you'd think Captain Kirk would have eventually learned that the proper order was, "Put her in decaying orbit"), vast uninhabitable reaches of space, blouses that button backwards, earthquakes, Michael Moore movies, flies, blisters on your dick. Yes. All true. But what does that prove? I made it the way I like it. I'm going to water-board most of you in Hell for eternity. (Yes, the original plan was involved fire, but George W Bush is even more cruel than me. Fire takes some people out of themselves, gives them a sort of mindless ecstasy of pain. I want you inescapably sapient in your terror.) Therefore, I filled the universe with death and pain and barrenness, to remind you ever of what your future holds.

Calling it "stupid" won't save you. Only I can save you. And I will save only 144,000 of you. And those I will save not because they are worthy, or because I like them, but only to set the suffering of the majority into greater relief.

Thus, the nature of the universe that you do behold. "The natural fact is always the adequate symbol." [1]

You may denounce my Plan as immoral according to your puny human morals, but I am moral according to my nature, and my nature is good because I am god. Should the pot criticize the potter?

In any case, Firstguy has done nothing to prove my design to be stupid. His disagreement, his puny human failure to appreciate, that doesn't make my design stupid.

Problem of Evil:

Firstguy's third and final argument is the problem of evil. Evil would be a problem indeed for a certain kind of god. It is true that I am powerful enough to prevent all evil. And it is true that I am smart, wise, knowing, and cleaver (specifically Beaver Cleaver) enough to prevent evil. But it is not my will to prevent all evil. I like most evil. I will enough good to set evil into sharp relief, but, beyond that, I wallow in evil. You have only to look around to see that I speak true. The PoE proves that some gods don't exist, but it has nothing to say about me.

Conclusion:

Firstguy (who styles himself "Con" even though he went first) undertook to prove that gods do not exist. He fielded three arguments against my existence.

Probability: He said nothing persuasive, or even relevant, about probability.

Stupid Design: He failed to consider my purpose. Since Firstguy doesn't get to dictate purpose to god, his design argument fails utterly.

Problem of Evil: Some gods obviously don't exist. There is no sport in proving that obviously non-existent gods don't exist. Such arguments have no relevance to those of us who do exist.

Firstguy issued the challenge and argued first. He has the burden of proof. But all of his arguments fail completely. The resolution is refuted.

Vote Pro. (I'm "Pro," even though I'm arguing second.)


---
[1] Ezra Pound. http://www.kansaspoets.com...



Debate Round No. 1
tala00131

Con

My opponent dose not give any arguments to prove the existince of God. My opponent seems to think that I have to disprove the existience of God. I can't disprove anything, what I can say is that there is no good reason for me to believe in God and there are good reasons for me not to believe in God. My opponent seems to think that without God morality dose not exist. I don't think that this is true. It would be very sad if it were true that you needed morality in order to be good, because what that would mean is that either you get your morals from the bible or some other holy book or you just don't want to go to hell. I hope that noone dose get there morals from the bible because of all of the offial things that are dotted in the old testament and the new testament as well because the idea that this loving God of knowledge and power could not think of a better way to forgive our sins than to have him self come to earth and have him self killed its petty and its small minded. Now my opponent seems to think that I said it is unlikely that God exists because there is no evidience this is wrong I said that it is unlikely that God exists because a God is very complex and something so complex as a God has to be very imrobable thefor it is unlikely that God exists.

Conclusion: Givin the fact that my opponent has not given any argument to suspect that God exists and I have given three good arguments to say that God dose not exists, I clearly win the debate so vote for me.
wiploc

Pro

Burden of Proof:

Pro undertook to prove that god exists. He issued the challenge, and he argued first: he has the burden of proof.

Now he's trying to shrug off that burden by claiming there's no reason to believe either way. If he doesn't have an opinion either way, then why did he start a debate? What if he and his opponent both took the "Duh, I don't know," stance. What kind of a debate would that be? It would be a debate that the first Know-nothing lost, because he argued first and so had the burden of proving the resolution.

If you argue first, you have the burden of proof. The only exception is if you make it absolutely explicit in your first post---so you opponent reads it before he accepts the debate---that the burden of proof lies on Secondguy. Otherwise, Firstguy has the burden.

One might think that Firstguy doesn't deserve to lose the conduct point, since he was confused, as opposed to trying to cheat. But, he still claims to be confused, even this late in the debate. He has not yet learned this critical matter. If you don't want him to keep starting debates in which neither party thinks he has the burden of proof, then nip this behavior in the bud: Vote conduct for Pro. (That's me, I'm Pro, even though I went second.)

Complexity:

Some theists use a complexity argument. They say that complexity comes only from greater complexity. This is why, according to them, that man has to have been created by a god. Man is complex. Therefore man came from something even more complex. Therefore god.

The Proper atheist response to that argument is to point out that---according to that logic---if god is complex, then he must have been created by an even-more-complex god. The atheist version of the complexity argument is a rebuttal. It won't stand alone. It is entirely ineffectual unless the theists first field their complexity argument.

Most theists claim that god is simple, a single unitary uniform unchanging thing with no parts. This makes no sense to me, but that's what they say. So it does Firstguy no good to claim that because god is complex, he is unlikely. In this debate, nobody but Firstguy is claiming that god is complex.

Personally, I don't think I'm complex. If it happens that I have the appearance of complexity---which I do not admit---I achieve that appearance by the use of magic.

Therefore, to Firstguy's complexity argument, three responses:

1. I deny that god is complex.

2. Firstguy has offered no good reason to think that complex gods are unlikely. He has not done a survey of universes with gods, to see how many spontaniously-occuring gods are complex. Does he think the rest of the universe is simple? Does he think that, in the absence of god, the spontanious occurance of the rest of the universe would be less improbable than the occurance of a god? He hasn't shown his work. He has given us no reason to accept his thesis. And now it's too late. If he finally decides to actually explain how this argument is supposed to work, he'll be doing so in the final round, which is inappropriate.

3. Complex things happen all the time. Naturally, spontaniously, frequently.

As far as his complexity argument goes, Firstguy doesn't have a case.

Drops:

I made eight arguments supporting the existence of god. Firstguy picked one of them, the moral argument, and said that he doesn't find it compelling. He said, "I don't think that is true." The other seven arguments he dropped. He effectively conceded them. Even if I had the burden to prove god exists---which I don't---these seven dropped arguments should suffice to give me the victory.

But let's look at that eighth argument anyway: First, I said the moral argument proves that god exists. Then Firstguy said he doesn't think that's true. That's not much of a response, but my moral argument wasn't much of an argument. If I just name an argument without expounding on how it works and why you should believe it, then any demurer suffices as refutation. "I don't think this is true," suffices as a rebuttal. The rebuttal is as strong as the argument, so the argument fails.

I'm laboring this point because it applies to his complexity argument. He hasn't explained why he thinks gods are complex, or why he thinks complex gods are improbable. In the absense of an explanation of why we should agree with him, any rebuttal suffices.

If "I don't think that is true," suffices as a rebuttal to my moral argument, it should also suffice as a full rebuttal to Firstguy's complexity argument. But my rebuttal of the complexity argument is much better than, "I don't think that's true."

Conclusion:

Firstguy undertook to prove that god does not exist. His case now hangs on two points:

1. "I don't think that's true." And,

2. It is improbable that god exists because "God is very complex."

His case hangs on those two points because he dropped everything else. Those are all that remain. They do not suffice to prove that god does not exist.

The first one fails because it leaves seven other arguments for god unopposed, effectively conceded. Plus it doesn't meet the burden of proof. Even if all eight of my arguments had failed, that wouldn't prove that god does not exist.

The second one fails because he is not making an argument, but merely naming an argument. He doesn't explain why we should agree. His complexity argument is no better than my morality argument. Any demurer suffices to refute an argument of that quality, and my refutation was far better than a mere demurer.

Therefore, Firstguy has not made his case. He hasn't met the burden of proof. He hasn't proven that gods don't exist.

Vote Pro. (I'm Pro, even though I'm arguing second.)

Note:

Please extend my arguments.








Debate Round No. 2
tala00131

Con

I forfited round two because my opponent gives no argument to say that God exists. He just keeps repeating him self and saying "the burden of proof is on him because he argued first" my opponent did a very poor job of trying to counter my argument and I have already refuted his counter to my argument and again he just repeats him self.
wiploc

Pro

Extend my arguments.

Vote Pro. (I'm Pro.)
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 3 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Firstguy had the burden of proof as instigator, which he failed to meet. Secondguy's 'arguments' were more loaded questions than actual arguments, but he did negate Firstguy's arguments, which is sufficient.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
why you talk clearly. why you don dare.
i think bogus and ambiguous statement about some one. is more retardants.
i come up bravely i dont care about my insult. human dont have any respect. all respect is toward ALLAH.
but you are coward. and think some one is bold will give you hard time. and give this kind of statement.
loll.
ALLAH said in Quran.
oh believer these peoples are more afraid of you than me, as they don't know.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
death is not suffering. the is escape from any suffering. you will be with ALLAH. sickness. and lack of facility. food, and many all other things are suffering. but death gives you ultimate relief.

and than who did right will get heaven and those who did wrong hell.
and that would be real suffering.
Posted by Apeiron 3 years ago
Apeiron
Sup with the business of "first-guy" lately? ... It's, uh, sort of retarded.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
death is not suffering. the is escape from any suffering. you will be with ALLAH. sickness. and lack of facility. food, and many all other things are suffering. but death gives you ultimate relief.

and than who did right will heaven and those who did wrong hell.
and that would be real suffering.
Posted by jimcapalbo123 3 years ago
jimcapalbo123
The Instigator in my opinion wins this debate, simply because is points are extremely good points that cannot be denied with factual logical information. He also does a great job organizing his thoughts when he breaks his argument into three main points. Then elaborates more indepthly about what each point means. The contender in my opinion runs around the questions and replys too broadly in order to be convincing. In my opinion when it comes to debates on religion the ones debating against relgion usually win. This is because the ones backing up religion will almost always have to rely on "well I just have faith." That to me has no credibility whats so ever.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 3 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
I would accept this but I have already debated this guy and have refuted these same exact arguments. Anyone else want to take the challenge?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
tala00131wiplocTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con says enough in his opening to make it clear he is referencing the O3 God. Pro does not come up with good responses. It's improbable that unicorns exist de to lack of evidence; Pro would have us believe that "not impossible" makes them not improbable. Pro offers an argument from incredulity that God must exist. Pro references a God that admits evil, not a reasonable type of God in the debate context. Con's S&G is incredibly bad --he's not trying-- but his arguments are sound.
Vote Placed by wolfman4711 3 years ago
wolfman4711
tala00131wiplocTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: con refuses to do anything in the second or third round. And claims his opponent has not given arguments which is not true.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 3 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
tala00131wiplocTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
tala00131wiplocTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and Grammar to Pro because of Con's typos and sources to Con because he used one more source than Pro. Arguments are a tie until I see that Pro did actually give the eight arguments he said he gave.