The Instigator
royalpaladin
Pro (for)
Winning
42 Points
The Contender
inferno
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Drafterman's Proof That God Does Not Reveal Himself to Everyone Was Logically Sound

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 7 votes the winner is...
royalpaladin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,711 times Debate No: 21633
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (27)
Votes (7)

 

royalpaladin

Pro

Please put your money where your mouth is and accept, inferno. No new arguments may be presented in the last round.
inferno

Con

Well here is my argument Lady Royale. It was not logically sound because he himself did not give me any substantial or empiracal evidence. I believe that because we can see even with science that we are here due to some type of intelligent design that does not come from any unliving object or being. It would seem strange that we as a human race, as complex as we are would come from nothing. But as we live our lives from matter, we know that we came from something. Every living organism produces another. And if it is non living, then it came from a force that is made up of matter and energy. It can be from the elements such as water and fire. Even those two elements have cells and molecules that create. So again, we cannot count out intelligent design. Or a divine intervention either.
The revelation comes from that which has is is being created here on Earth daily.
Debate Round No. 1
royalpaladin

Pro

Case

A week ago, Drafterman posted a proof that God does not reveal himself to everyone.

From Drafterman

reveal - to make known.


1. An atheist does not believe that god exists.
2. If you don't believe in something, then you don't know it either.
3. Atheists don't know that god exists.
4. God is not known to them.
5. God has not been revealed to them.
6. Atheists are included in the group "everybody"
Conclusion: God has not revealed himself to everybody.

This proof is logically sound because every premise that Drafterman used was accurate.

Premise 1: An atheist, by definition, is someone who does not exist. This is obviously correct because it is a definitional premise.

Premises 2-5 on the notion that Atheists do not know if God exists because God has not been revealed to them; this is also logically true because unless someone actually knows whether or not an object exists, that object has not been revealed to them. If I do not know whether or not unicorns exist, it is because I have never seen a unicorn. Similarly, Atheists do not know if God exists because God has never been revealed to them.


The final premise and the conclusion discuss whether or not Atheists are part of the set that includes "everyone". Since Atheists are humans and that set includes all humans, Atheists are in that set. Since God has not revealed himself to the Atheists, and Atheists are a subset of the set that includes everybody, God has not revealed himself to everybody.


QED.


Opponent's Response
Ok, so the first thing that I would like to note is that my opponent did not even discuss this proof at all; the debate is about whether or not Drafterman's proof is logically sound, and not about the myriad of other things that he discusses. Insofar as this is true, we can ignore most of his case because it is completely nontopical and does not contribute much to the debate.

Response to: "It was not logically sound because he himself did not give me any substantial or empiracal evidence."


"Logically sound" denotes "correct according to the principles of logic." Drafterman's obligation was not to provide empirical evidence that proved his case to be true; rather, he was supposed to show that his premises and conclusion fit together. Thus, the fact that he did not provide empirical evidence is immaterial because he was supposed to carry out the proof through the use of logic and not through the use of empirical examples. The impact is that this argument does not actually disprove the proof because it is attempting to impose additional obligations on Drafterman even though he did not have them.


Even if you ignore this, Drafterman did provide empirical evidence because he offered himself as a subset of the set of Atheists. Since "everyone" implies every member of the set of humanity, if God does not reveal himself to one person, he does not reveal himself to everyone. Drafterman noted that God has not revealed himself to him, so the proof is correct on an empirical level as well.


The rest of my opponent's arguments are about intelligent design and divine intervention. These have absolutely nothing to do with Drafterman's contention that God does not reveal himself to everyone, so we can ignore these completely. However, for my opponent's edification, I will respond to his "complexity" analysis.


The first problem is that my opponent's argument rests on a "god of the gaps" fallacy. His argument is that, essentially, he does not believe that science can adequately explain the complexity of life, so "God" must be responsible. This fallacious reasoning rests on the assumption that since we cannot explain a phenomenon, the event must be supernatural. This is the same logic that led the Ancient Egyptians to believe that Sun was a god who journeyed across the sky every die and spent the rest of the night combating demons in the Underworld. Just because science cannot explain a phenomenon at the moment does not mean that a scientific explanation does not exist.


Second, his complexity analysis can be refuted with the classic "argument from poor design." He assumes that God is an omniscient, perfect being who created biologically perfect, complex organisms. In fact, this is the basic outline of his logic:

  • Living things are too well-designed to have originated by chance.
  • Therefore, life must have been created by an intelligent creator.
  • This creator is God.

The problem is that the following proof refutes this fallacious notion:

  • An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
  • Organisms have features that are sub-optimal.
  • Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

Evidence that the "design" was sub-optimal:

  • The structure of humans' eyes (as well as those of all mammals). The retina is 'inside out'. The nerves and blood vessels lie on the surface of the retina instead of behind it as is the case in many invertebrate species. This arrangement forces a number of complex adaptations and gives mammals a blind spot. (See Evolution of the eye). Six muscles move the eye when three would suffice.[8][9]

Thus, I strongly urge a Pro ballot.

inferno

Con

inferno forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
royalpaladin

Pro

My opponent dropped all of my arguments, so please extend my analysis about how Drafterman's proof is logically sound as well as the rebuttals to his complexity contention.
inferno

Con

inferno forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
royalpaladin

Pro

My opponent drops all of my analysis. Please extend all of my arguments and vote Pro. Note that he cannot post new arguments in his last speech because that would be unfair and a violation of debate conduct.
inferno

Con

Drafterman did make a valid point. So I relenquich this victory to him. However, that does not mean that his analysis, or ideology is accurate in any sense of the word, with all due respect.
Debate Round No. 4
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TropaBino 4 months ago
TropaBino
This is one of the worst arguments ever. If this argument is true then how about this argument:

Jack the Ripper killed prostitutes.
Prostitutes are included in the group "everybody"
Conclusion:Jack the ripper killed everybody

You made a huge jump. What a generalisation. I don't even know how you can't see that huge fallacy...
Posted by inferno 5 years ago
inferno
But I do. And even your sarcasm is the ultimate fail. But my greatness and the understanding of it will evade you like the wind. *
Posted by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
While you may certainly be proud of your arogance, it certainly wasn't a compliment. But I don't exactly expect you to understand the meaning of words.
Posted by inferno 5 years ago
inferno
Arrogance. That is my middle name. Thanks for the compliment.
Posted by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
LOL at the arrogance required to interpret ones own apathy as apathy on any sort of widespread level.
Posted by inferno 5 years ago
inferno
Again, like I said. Who cares.
Posted by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
I care. Royal cares. The fact that you bothered to accept the challenge implied you care. This isn't a display of shallowness. I'm not saying I don't care or don't believe in your "side." I'm just saying it isn't relevant to the issue at hand.
Posted by inferno 5 years ago
inferno
Like I said. Who cares. This is just another example of the shallowness of Atheism.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
What drafter said. If your side of the story proves that it's logically false, then by all means, tell your side. But from what I read, it doesn't.
Posted by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
"So what"? Well, that's the point of this debate and of my posting of the argument to begin with. It's not a matter of your "side of the story" or believing you. It's a matter of whether or not the logical argument I presented is sound.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
royalpaladininfernoTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: No Argument, then FF, Then FF, then FF.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
royalpaladininfernoTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Can I just say that obvious win is obvious and go home now? I can? Awesome.
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
royalpaladininfernoTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Geez inferno, your mad about losing this debate? Your forfeited half of the rounds and barely make any argument.
Vote Placed by Xerge 5 years ago
Xerge
royalpaladininfernoTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit...
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
royalpaladininfernoTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
royalpaladininfernoTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
royalpaladininfernoTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.