The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
kbrown96
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

God Does Not Exist

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 1 vote the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 794 times Debate No: 41544
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Rules

God in the debate is defined as:

"The perfect, transcendent mind that caused of all time and space"

The burden of proof will be shared. I will be arguing that God does not exist, Pro will be arguing that God does exist. This means that simply undermining my arguments is not enough to win the debate, my opponent must also have positive arguments for God's existence.

The first round is for acceptance only; no argument will be posted in the first round.

Failure to abide by any of the rules will result in a full 7 point forfeit.

Good luck.
kbrown96

Con

Hello, I will accept debate
To prove my point and deem your fate
That a supernatural being does exist.
Feeble your attempts will be
To produce facts and convince me
And argument will only make me pissed.
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Argument From Temporal Minds

My argument is simple:


P1: If God exists, a non-temporal mind can exist

P2: A non-temporal mind cannot exist

C: Therefore, God does not exist


The argument is valid Modus Tollens ("If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P."[1]). The question that remains pertains as to what justification there is to believe the premises are actually true.

Defense of P1

If God exists, then he transcends time, and thus, God would be timeless and not dependent on time (non-temporal) sans the creation of the first moment of time. Since God has to be a mind, then we can deduce that if God exists; a timeless, or non-temporal mind can exist. This seems to cash out from the very definition of God used in this debate. The issue will be surrounding P2 it seems.

Defense of P2

This becomes evident once we unpack the concept of timelessness, and a mind; a contradiction arises. A mind must have thoughts. “A mind” without “thoughts” is like “room” without “space”; it is simply nonsensical. What are thoughts? Thoughts are the product of thinking by definition[2][3][4]. What is thinking? Thinking is a mental action/ process by definition[5][6][7]. An action/ process entails a jump from A to B. A jump from A to B entails a change:


Change is intimately bound up with, and requires time:

"So construed, the notion of change is obviously bound up with notions of cause, time and motion" - Change and Inconsistency (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)[8]

"Change is intimately bound up with time." - What is philosophy? (University of Florida)[9]

This is because when a change occurs that presupposes time for it to occur; or else everything just remains frozen with no movement. This means that to have thoughts, these thoughts have to be temporal. Therefore, to have a mind, the mind must be temporal. Ergo, a non-temporal mind entails a logical contradiction, and cannot be the case.

"How can a nontemporal mind think? Thinking at its most generic metric requires that this mind have one state and then transition to another." - Ben Schuldt[10]

---

Since the conclusion of my argument logically follows from the premises, and the premises are true; God does not exist.

The Argument From Humans


P1: If God exists, humans do not exist

P2: Humans exist

C: Therefore, God does not exist


This argument is valid Modus Tollens, just as the last one. The debate will be about whether the premises are true.

Defense of P1

P2, obviously, is not controversial; the issue surrounds P1. Well, God is defined as a perfect being (which is a maximally great being). In other words, this is the greatest conceivable being. Some actions from a being are consistent with this definition, some are not. I am going to show that if God exists, this entails and action by him which contradicts his definition. Thus, God is incoherent and illogical.

Take this axiom:

A: If Being A does action X at time T, then at time T, Being A did not do something else besides action X at time T, instead of action X at time T.

The above is a self-evident truth. If I ate a meal yesterday at 5:00am, then it follows necessarily that at 5:00am yesterday, I wasn't doing something else besides eating a meal at 5:00am, instead of eating a meal at 5:00am.

What does all this mean? Well, if God created us at time T, then at time T, he did not create beings greater, or more perfect than humans besides humans, instead of humans at time T. However, that is inconsistent with the idea of the most perfect, and greatest conceivable being. I can can conceive a greater being than one who created humans at time T; one that created a greater, and more perfect species than humans instead of us at time T. Therefore, if God exists, humans don't exist.

This argument shows that if humans exist, then God doesn't. The problem is; we clearly exist. I'll end this section with a quote from Philosopher Quentin Smith:

"I can't believe that a perfect being would create such things as humans. The main reason that God doesn't exist, is that humans exist. That makes it self-evident that God does not exist." - Quentin Smith[11]

The Problem Of Evil


P1: If God exists, Gratuitous suffering does not exist

P2: Gratuitous suffering exists

C: Therefore, God does not exist.


This argument is valid Modus Tollens, just as the last one. The debate will be about whether the premises are true.

Defense Of P1

If God is perfect, then he is omnibenevolent. As Philosopher Ryan Stringer notes:

"P1 is a necessary truth based on the properties of God. As a morally perfect being, God must have a morally sufficient reason to permit or create evil; for this is part of what it means to be morally perfect. And since 'gratuitous evil' simply refers to evil that God, if he existed, would have no morally sufficient reason to permit or create, he will not permit or create it if he exists. Thus, God's existence entails the nonexistence of gratuitous evil."
- Ryan Stringer[12]


Most theists are willing to grant P1, and it is relatively uncontroversial. As Christian philosopher Daniel Howard-Snyder states:

"[T]he idea that God may well permit gratuitous evil is absurd. After all, if God can get what He wants without permitting some particular horror (or anything comparably bad), why on earth would He permit it?" -
Daniel Howard-Snyder[13]

A perfectly good being would only allow suffering, or evil, if it was necessary for some greater good. If a being allowed suffering or evil for no good reason, then this is clearly a lesser being than one who would make sure there was a reason, and that there was a good entailed by the evil in question. Thus, If God exists, gratuitous suffering does not exist.

Defense Of P2


P1: If it is the case that all occurrences of apparently gratuitous suffering are really necessary for some greater good, then we should not prevent apparently gratuitous suffering

P2: We should prevent apparently gratuitous suffering

C: Therefore, it is not the case that all occurrences of apparently gratuitous suffering are really necessary for some greater good


Again, this argument is valid Modus Tollens.

--- Defense of P1

If God exists, then all of the suffering that appears gratuitous is really necessary for some greater good without exception. Tampering with any apparently gratuitous suffering would cancel out the greater good that is necessarily entailed by it. Thus, one ought not do it (more goodness at the end of the day is better then less goodness at the end of the day).

--- Defense of P2

Certainly, if a little girl is being brutally raped and possibly may die, we ought to prevent it. Nobody in their right mind who stumbled across this situation would let it continue due to the fact that if they didn't let it continue, they would be cancelling out some greater good that is necessarily entailed by the apparently gratuitous suffering.

“The fact that a Christian would save the child if he could implies that Christians don't really believe that an apparently needless death [or suffering] serves any greater good.” - Paul Doland[14]

The two premises of the argument seem plausible enough to affirm that at least some cases of apparently gratuitous suffering are actually gratuitous, even if other cases of apparently gratuitous suffering really do entail some greater good in the long run.

I think we have a convincing argument for the non-existence of God based off of premises that are more plausibly true than there negation. Thus, God does not exist.


Divine Hiddenness


P1: If God exists, then all humans (who are open minded, open hearted, and who's cognitive faculties are functioning) who try to experience God, experience God.


P2: Not all humans (who are open minded, open hearted, and who's cognitive faculties are functioning) who try to experience God, experience God

C: Therefore, God does not exist


The argument is valid via Modus Tollens

Defense of P1

This cashes out from the definition of God. If he is all loving, then he would want all capable humans who try to engage in a relationship with him to succeed. As Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig says:

"If God exists then he would surely make a way for all persons to know him, and come to relationship with him... For a person with an open mind and an open heart, who's cognitive faculties are functioning properly will come to belief in God" - William Lane Craig[15]

Defense Of P2

Some of the greatest logicians were Atheists (Bertrand Russell[16]), so nobody can reasonably say that all Atheists don't have working cognitive faculties. Most (if not all) Atheists, I am sure, have tried to speak to God with an open mind and heart but with no results. Many Jews reported feeling abandoned by God during the time they needed him the most[17].

Divine Hiddenness strongly disconfirms Theism.

Conclusion

I presented 4 arguments in favor of the resolution. Con most tear down all 4 arguments, and erect a case of his own to negate the resolution.

Sources

[1] http://www.philosophy-index.com...
[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[3] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[4] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[5] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[6] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[7] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[8] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[9] http://web.phil.ufl.edu...
[10] http://richardcarrier.wikispaces.com...
[11] http://www.closertotruth.com...
[12] http://www.infidels.org...
[13] Howard-Snyder, Daniel, and Frances Howard-Snyder. 1999. "Is Theism Compatible with Gratuitous Evil?" American Philosophical Quarterly 36: 115-29
[14] http://www.infidels.org...
[15] You-Tube [watch?v=WMxTghJQxEc]
[16] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[17]
http://www.myjewishlearning.com...l

kbrown96

Con

As your extensive and sourced argument was posted in less than an hour of my acceptance, I will assume you have spent time crafting this argument before.

DISPROOF OF THE FIRST ARGUMENT:
To disprove your first argument, I will disprove your second premise: "A non-temporal mind cannot exist." (Only one premise must be dismissed to disprove an argument, I hope you will agree.)

Here I think is where we differ in opinion: you believe thought is "a jump from A to B", whereas I believe thought is a literally instantaneous phenomenon. I will cite the work of renowned professor Douglas Hofstadter here, but only the title of a speech of his at Stanford, "Analogy as the Core of Cognition." Thought doesn't necessarily involve thinking by definition. Thought, in its most basic form, is the instantaneous connection of two pre-introduced concepts. Many organisms today involve this mindless, instantaneous thought. These organisms exhibit instantaneous reactions to instantaneous stimuli (based on analogy of previous experiences of the organism). This is what I believe separates humans from most organsisms - temporal as opposed to non-temporal thoughts. Humans, after experience of living, exhibit temporal thought - we think of different possibilities from a recurring stimuli (almost Einstein's definition of insanity). Say the front door opens and it's your mother - and she's yelling at you. If the door opened and you were a temporal-thinking human, you would take time to process thought, realize that it was your mom last time (form an analogy), but realize that, according to laws of probability, it probably isn't your mom this time. If you were a non-temporal thinking organism and saw the front door open, you would form the analogy that {door = angry mother}, and would probably run. In simple words, thinking is temporal, thought is non-temporal. Thinking involves connecting various experiences (forming multiple analogies and possibilities), whereas thought involves the exact same instantaneous reaction to the exact same instantaneous analogy.

DISPROOF OF THE SECOND ARGUMENT:
I have reread and reread your second argument, but I still can not see the logic in your first premise, "If God exists, humans do not exist." A supernatural being existed in the first place, created life at Time X, and life evolved to what it is today. I do not see how if a supernatural being existed, created time, space, and life at times X, Y, and Z, respectively, the supernatural being could exist while life (humans) also exist.

DISPROOF OF THE THIRD AND FOURTH ARGUMENTS:
I combine the disproof of the third and fourth arguments here because they are essentially the same thing. Your premise of the third argument, "If God exists, Gratuitous suffering does not exist," is juxtaposed with your second premise, "Gratuitous suffering exists," solely for the purpose of obvious disproof of a god. OF COURSE GRATUITOUS SUFFERING EXISTS. Humans choices, were, are, and always will be inherent and unshakable. A supernatural being created life with the opportunity of choice and therefore with the opportunity of gratuitous suffering....GRATUITOUS SUFFERING AND "GOD" CAN EXIST AT THE SAME TIME. Your first premise of the fourth argument, "If it is the case that all occurrences of apparently gratuitous suffering are really necessary for some greater good..." is nonsensical...IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT ALL GRATUITOUS SUFFERING IS NECESSARY FOR A GREATER GOOD. Just because gratuitous suffering exists IN NO WAY suggests that its existence is necessary for a greater good. It's gratuitous suffering; it has no purpose. It is the product of human choice. I don't think further disproof of this argument is necessary.

THE ILLOGICALITY OF THE FIFTH ARGUMENT:
There is no way to prove or provide disproof of your fifth argument. Just because an individual can not "experience" a supernatural being doesn't mean the being exists or does not exist...it just means that individual did not "experience" the supernatural being. Therefore, you have no way to logically prove your fifth argument, and it is therefore rendered invalid. We could sit here and talk about whether or not we each believe in a supernatural being, but opinions are opinions (not facts), and it will get us nowhere.

A SIMPLE ARGUMENT FOR A SUPERNATURAL BEING: As you previously stated, a supernatural being "caused" time. Therefore, this being either started time or created it. As time doesn't actually exist and is an obvious human creation, this can only mean the supernatural being started "time". If the being was able to start "time", would it not be able to stop and control "time" as well, and thus render the "temporal" part of your argument invalid?

The way I see it (and excuse the exaggerated, but accurate ultimatum) there are two possible theories of existence:
1. There once was nothing, and then from that nothing came everything. (An exaggerated abbreviation of the Big Bang Theory).
2. There once was something, and then from that something came everything. (An exaggerated abbreviation of some sort of supernatural creationism).

"Something" creating everything seems much more logical to me than "nothing" creating everything.

I would like to point out that, as I am not Christian (or religious, for that matter), I hope when you say "God" in your argument, you mean a supernatural being (as you stated the debate was about in the first round). If you are referring to the nonexistence of the Christian God, I am not here to debate that, for I agree with you. If you are referring to a supernatural being, please clarify in the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Argument From Temporal Minds


Con doesn't respond to my first premise, meaning that if the second premise goes through; the entire argument goes through.

Now, my opponent argues that thoughts aren't necessarily the product of thinking by definition. However, this is clearly false according to the definitions of the word:


"A product of thinking"[1]

"A single act or product of thinking"[2][

"An idea or opinion produced by thinking, or occurring suddenly in the mind" [3]

My opponent seems to want to change the English language, but of course, when one resorts to that, this just shows the strength of the overall argument. How does my opponent define a thought? He defines it has such:

"Thought, in its most basic form, is the instantaneous connection of two pre-introduced concepts." - Con

This definition is insufficient, as it is illogical. A concept is an idea by definition[4][5][6], and an idea by definition is a thought[7][8][9]. Thus, my opponent's definition is essentially "a thought is the instantaneous connection of two pre-introduced thoughts". Not only is that definition circular, but it leads to infinite regress of thoughts because those two pre-conceived thoughts would be connections of four preconceived thoughts before it, and those would have to connect eight before it, and so on and so forth ad inifinitum. This would mean that all minds have to be infinite; which is absurd.

Since my opponents definition is illogical, is must be rejected. Thus, my definition of "thought" stands. Also, my opponent did no object to the notion that thinking is temporal. This is problematic, because thinking is inherent to the very definition of mind. Thus, we don't even need the "thoughts" argument. A mind is defined as:

"[T]he part of a person that thinks, reasons, feels, and remembers"[10]

"[T]he element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc"[11]

My opponent concedes that thinking is temporal:

"[T]hinking is temporal" - Con

Since thinking is inherent to the very notion of a mind (a mind that doesn't think is like a flame that doesn't burn, it is completely incoherent), then my opponent essentially concedes the argument that a mind cannot be temporal. Thus, God does not exist.

Summary of the Argument from Temporal Minds

. My definitions are the standard definitions. Con has to essentially change inherent meanings of words to try to undermine my argument (which speaks volumes to the power of my argument)


. My opponent's definition of a thought is circular (it basically has "thoughts" right inside the definition indirectly), plus it leads to the notion that all minds are infinite. Also, the idea of thoughts just being "connections of connections" is rather bizarre. Con gave us no valid, or sound reason to reject the standard definition of thought. Thus, it stands, and the argument follows.

. Thinking is inherent to what a mind is. A mind that doesn't think is like water that doesn't have molecules; these notions go against the very nature of the thing in question. Also, the definition of mind has "thinking" right inside of it. Thus, since my opponent admits thinking is temporal; he admits a mind must be temporal. Thus, the argument follows; God does not exist.

Argument From Humans

My opponent commits a straw-man fallacy. God is not defined as just a supernatural being, but a perfect being. If a perfect being exists, then he must have certain modal properties as does everything else[12]. This means that if God exists, he either has:

(i) The property of necessarily being the necessary condition for only perfection

(ii) The property of possibly being the necessary condition for imperfection

What stems from God would just be a reflection of his nature if he exists (sort of like how logic would be inherent to God's nature, therefore, he cannot be the necessary condition for illogical things like round squares). This means that a truly perfect being has (i), not (ii) (it would be impossible to have both). However, humans are not the greatest conceivable created beings (we could have more intelligence ect.). We would have to be if we really stemmed from a perfect being. Thus, a perfect being does not exist.

Summary of the Argument from humans

The argument from humans shows that a perfect being would have created more perfect beings than us, instead of us if he existed. Since we exist; this confirms God's non-existence. Con's rebuttal was based on a straw-man. Thus, it can be dismissed. The Argument from Humans stands; God does not exist.


The Problem Of Evil

My opponent concedes that gratuitous suffering exists. However, he believes that a supernatural being is compatible with gratuitous suffering. This, once more, is problematic. We are not talking about any old supernatural being, but a perfect omnibenevolent being. It entails more benevolence to have all suffering allowed be necessary for some greater good (and not be gratuitous), than it is for there to be pointless suffering that is not for some greater good. Therefore, a maximally good and perfect being would make all suffering necessary for some greater good and not gratuitous. Since gratuitous suffering exists (as my opponent concedes), then via Modus Tollens; God doesn't exist. This premise is widely accepted by Atheists and Theists alike:

"Theists usually agree with [if God exists, gratuitous suffering does not exist]" - Nicholas Tattersall[13]

This is because is it necessary due to the definition of God. To repeat philosopher Ryan Stringer's quote:

"P1 is a necessary truth based on the properties of God. As a morally perfect being, God must have a morally sufficient reason to permit or create evil; for this is part of what it means to be morally perfect. And since 'gratuitous evil' simply refers to evil that God, if he existed, would have no morally sufficient reason to permit or create, he will not permit or create it if he exists. Thus, God's existence entails the nonexistence of gratuitous evil." - Ryan Stringer

Summary of Problem of Evil

Since Con concedes that gratuitous suffering exists, but it is necessary that this is not the case if God exists; God does not exist in the context of this debate.


Divine Hiddenness

Once more, God isn't just defined as a supernatural being, but a perfect, and all loving being. An all loving being would want all beings to be able to freely experience him if they try and have an open mind. Since many people have had an open mind, and failed to experience this being; this disconfirms the existence of a perfectly good, all loving being. My opponent cannot say that the argument is invalid, because this argument is valid via Modus Tollens. He just disagrees with one of the premises. However, this disagreement is based on a misunderstanding about who God is if he exists. God isn't just some supernatural being, but an all loving being. This is the difference which makes my argument go though, and gets around Con's objection with ease.

Summary of Divine Hiddenness

Con's rebuttal neglects that God isn't just some supernatural being, but a perfect and all loving being. Thus, my argument goes through; God does not exist.


Refuting My Opponent's Argument For God's Existence


My opponent says that I previously stated that God caused time. However, I believe I made it clear that my view is that if God exists, he caused time. That is not a concession on my behalf of God's existence. Now, my opponent says that time doesn't exist, it is just a human creation. That is a radical claim that he offered no support for, and it is in no way "obvious". Time is one of the most intimate part of our lives, so if we deny time as real then we might as well deny almost anything as real. Also, if time wasn't real then we couldn't think, as thinking requires the existence of time (as Con himself concedes). If time is an illusion, then change is an illusion. This is impossible though, because it would be a changing illusion!

Also, there if something caused the universe, Con have no reason to think it had to be a perfect mind. Therefore, he has not met his burden of proof. He has only argued that "something" must have caused everything we see, but he never defended the notion that this "something" had to be God.


Conclusion

I provided 4 arguments to show that God doesn't exist. My first argument is based on the fact that a mind has to be able to think and have thoughts, or it isn't a mind. However, this requires a temporal domain. Since God by definition entails that a non-temporal mind is possible when it is not; God does not exist. My opponent's only attempt at refutation involved a circular, and illogical definition. Con's objection to my second argument was based on a misunderstanding of my argument. The rebuttal to the Problem of Evil and Divine Hiddenness neglects the fact that God is a perfect, and all loving being. Thus, he wouldn't allow gratuitous suffering, and would have everyone be able to experience him. Since these conditions are not met; God does not exist.


Con offered only one weak argument for his case, and it didn't even help him support his burden of proof. Something causing the universe, doesn't mean that a perfect mind caused the universe.

All my arguments stand.

Sources

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[5] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[6] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[7] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

[8] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[9] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[10] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[11] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[12] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[13] http://www.infidels.org...
[14] http://www.infidels.org...
kbrown96

Con

kbrown96 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

I my opponent forfeited. I extend all arguments...
kbrown96

Con

kbrown96 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
You committed the fallacy of a false analogy. So obviously I know what a fallacy is, or I wouldn't have been able to call you out on that.

"Your statement here is the the key fallacy in your argument it is nowhere incumbent upon the greatest possible being to produce the best possible product. "

Yes there is, because I can conceive of a being greater than one who creates less than the best; one who creates only the best. Therefore, the greatest conceivable being creates only the best.

"Furthermore your argument ignores attributes of the very God you are constructing, given that you are presumably working from the notion of the God of Christendom then yes He did produce perfect humans reread Genesis 1"

He wouldn't have created humans if he was the greatest conceivable being, therefore, scripture contradicts his attributes! We already know the Bible is contradictory anyway.

"It is a valid reductio ad absurdum"

Nope, it is a fallacious false analogy! Your argument supposes that we would expect humans to always create the best. That is stupid, as we are not the greatest conceivable beings. God is. Therefore, your parody has nothing to do with my argument.

Epic fail dude.
Posted by Tertullian 2 years ago
Tertullian
Your response does not grapple with the parody at all and only shows you do not understand it. The greatest conceivable being is not required to produce the best material. You probably don't even know how to define a fallacy properly.

"God is the greatest being. Therefore, we would expect him to create only the best!"

Your statement here is the the key fallacy in your argument it is nowhere incumbent upon the greatest possible being to produce the best possible product. Maybe your definition of greatest possible being but not Anselm's or Dun Scotus' definition. That is an unwarranted and an proven assumption.

Furthermore your argument ignores attributes of the very God you are constructing, given that you are presumably working from the notion of the God of Christendom then yes He did produce perfect humans reread Genesis 1.

"Because you are comparing humans to God fallaciously; your parody fails."

No it does not. It is a valid reductio ad absurdum, I suggest you bone of up on your knowledge of logic and fallacies.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"For any human doing x (producing Styrofoam cups) at time T I could conceive of a human producing something far superior namely nearly indestructible synthetic material cups."

Your parody doesn't work and is utterly fallacious, because human beings are not the greatest beings. Therefore, we would't expect humans to necessarily always create the best synthetic cups. God is the greatest being. Therefore, we would expect him to create only the best!

Because you are comparing humans to God fallaciously; your parody fails.
Posted by Tertullian 3 years ago
Tertullian
I thought my original comment was not up. Someone can delete the second comment which was a mistake.
Posted by Tertullian 3 years ago
Tertullian
Your argument from humans is manifestly fallacious. Your key assumption is that an all powerful all good God would not have created something as defective as humans. I shall prove that humans do not exist because Styrofoam cups exist.

P1: If Humans exists, Styrofoam cups do not exist

P2: Styrofoam cups exist

C: Therefore, humans do not exist

Premise two is incontrovertible Styrofoam cups do exist. For any being of intelligence and power it is incumbent upon that being to produce objects that are the best they can possibly be. (that is the tacit assumption of your argument, since you reject the idea that a perfect God would produce defective material). If God is perfect He must produce perfect creations. If man is qualitatively rational he must produce objects at the that tax is rational and creative faculties to the limit, like building rocket ships.

A: If Being A does action X at time T, then at time T, Being A did not do something else besides action X at time T, instead of action X at time T.

For any human doing x (producing Styrofoam cups) at time T I could conceive of a human producing something far superior namely nearly indestructible synthetic material cups. Such cups could be produced for the mass market, but are not. In fact why would humans ever produce something as wretched as Styrofoam cups, they last barley a day after use and are easily destroyed by fire or sharp or blunt instruments.

"I can't believe that humans would create such things as Styrofoam cups. The main reason that highly rational hominids doesn't exist, is that Styrofoam cups exist. That makes it self-evident that humans does not exist."

I have proven that the argument from humans with a reduction ad absurdum can also prove humans do not exist. This is clearly absurd so this argument is absurd and provides no evidence against the existence of God.
Posted by Tertullian 3 years ago
Tertullian
Your argument from humans is manifestly fallacious. Your key assumption is that an all powerful all good God would not have created something as defective as humans. I shall prove that humans do not exist because Styrofoam cups exist.

P1: If Humans exists, Styrofoam cups do not exist

P2: Styrofoam cups exist

C: Therefore, humans do not exist

Premise two is incontrovertible Styrofoam cups do exist. For any being of intelligence and power it is incumbent upon that being to produce objects that are the best they can possibly be. (that is the tacit assumption of your argument, since you reject the idea that a perfect God would produce defective material). If God is perfect He must produce perfect creations. If man is qualitatively rational he must produce objects at the that tax is rational and creative faculties to the limit, like building rocket ships.

A: If Being A does action X at time T, then at time T, Being A did not do something else besides action X at time T, instead of action X at time T.

For any human doing x (producing Styrofoam cups) at time T I could conceive of a human producing something far superior namely nearly indestructible synthetic material cups. Such cups could be produced for the mass market, but are not. In fact why would humans ever produce something as wretched as Styrofoam cups, they last barley a day after use and are easily destroyed by fire or sharp or blunt instruments.

"I can't believe that humans would create such things as Styrofoam cups. The main reason that highly rational hominids doesn't exist, is that Styrofoam cups exist. That makes it self-evident that humans does not exist."

I have proven that the argument from humans with a reduction ad absurdum can also prove humans do not exist. This is clearly absurd so this argument is absurd and provides no evidence against the existence of God.
Posted by TetsuRiken 3 years ago
TetsuRiken
kbrown you aren't death so you can't judge any ones fate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
Rational_Thinker9119kbrown96Tied
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: Full ff, all of pros points remain uncontested.