God Does Not Exist
Debate Rounds (3)
The hypothesis of that an omnipotent and omniscient being created this world is a poor hypothesis that creates as much questions as it answers.
1. It leads to an infinite regress-for who then created God?If that question does not arise,then hypothesising a creator is an arbitrary hypothesis-not one that fits the problem situation .
2.It does not make any predictions of a new kind-every good theory uses laws to explain and also gives us predictions of a new kind.
3. Finally,the most obvious-it is does not give any angle to criticise. The basic characteristic of a rational/scientific explanation is that it is arguable and critisisable.It leads back to my point no.1:it is simply chosen ad hoc-plucked out of thin air -a take it or leave it thing( of course,it doesn't end there-if you don't believe you'd go to hell-how the hell else do irrationalists winj adherents-but with fear,calling names,emotive statements,etc?? )
It's pointless to debate you-you deny rational standards.Though I doubt,you'd forget to pour petrol for your car though"Every man uses the scientific method for a great many things and only ceases to do so where he does not know how" C.S.Peirce . Of course,in your case you simply don't want anybody applying scientific standards to analyse your God Delusion. Just saying.
MrRaguRam forfeited this round.
Christcomes forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.