The Instigator
DrCereal
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
holla1755
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

God Exists

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 1 vote the winner is...
DrCereal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/6/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,426 times Debate No: 104327
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)

 

DrCereal

Con

Resolution: A theistic god exists.

Structure
The burden of proof will lie solely on Pro. Con will not be contending that a god does not exist, but he will act as a sketpic and question and refute the arguments presented by Pro.

Definition

Theistic god - An intervening and personal god that created and rules the universe.

Rules
1. Round 1 can be used for the first argument.
2. Pro must waive round 5 to compsensate for round 1.
3. Do not be condescending during the debate.
4. Please do not accept the debate if you have doubts about staying with it.


Once you accept the debate, you can post your first argument. Enjoy! :)
holla1755

Pro

All propositions are true.(1)(2)(3) "A theistic god exists" is a proposition. So, "A theistic god exists" is true. Therefore, a theistic god exists.

Works Cited:
(1) http://www.debate.org...
(2) http://www.debate.org...
(3) http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 1
DrCereal

Con

Rebuttals:

I. The "All Propositions are True" Premise

Pro's main (and only) argument that God exists is his syllogism that asserts as a premise that "all propositions are true". For me to refute Pro's argument for God, I would have to adequately demonstrate that this premise is based on faulty logic, and I do so in rebuttal two.

II. The Rectangle Argument

To prove that all propositions are true, Pro utilizes the proposition, "A rectangle is a square". He asserts that since some rectangles are squares, the proposition is true. He also asserts that since some rectangles are not squares, the proposition is also false. He then draws the conclusion that the proposition and it's negative (a rectangle is not a square) are both true, and that therefore, all propositions are true.

To refute this claim, let me first break it down for you. "A rectangle" has no meaning until one assigns it meaning. In this case, one can either assign it "a rectangle which is not a square" or "a rectangle which is a square". This would mean that the initial proposition proposed by Pro would become two:

1. A rectangle which is not a square is a square, and
2. a rectangle which is a square is a square.

When observing the two new propositions we derived from Pro's original proposition, we can clearly see that no logical mishaps are present. Pro's original proposition breaks down when you assume both definitions are being used at the same time. I.e., Pro's proposition broke down when he committed the fallacy of equivocation. The only mystery here is Pro's exploitation of "a rectangle"'s ambiguity.

In summary, Pro's Rectangle Argument commits the fallacy of equivocation and is therefore logically invalid.

Conclusion
Since Pro's argument for his premise that "all propositions are true" is flawed, his premise clearly fails under scrutiny and does not hold, and since Pro's only argument was based on this premise, his argument for God's existence also fails. The resolution has yet to be affirmed.
holla1755

Pro

Con claims that "A rectangle," as mentioned in the proposition p = "A rectangle is a square," refers to "a rectangle that is not a square" or "a rectangle that is a square," but not both. I disagree with his claim. It is not required that "A rectangle" refer to one and only one rectangle. All that is required of "A rectangle" is that it refer to "one rectangle." In mathematics, and technically, in ordinary language, "one" does not mean "one and only one." Sometimes "one" indicates "at least one." For example, if there are five peaches on a table, then there is also one peach on the table. As another example, if a triangle has three congruent sides, then it also has two congruent sides. In the case of proposition p, "A rectangle" refers to at least one rectangle. In p, no further information is given as to what "A rectangle" is referring to. As a result, "A rectangle" applies to every rectangle simultaneously. For that reason, "A rectangle" simultaneously refers to every rectangle. That is how propositions of the same form as p are commonly used in geometry. I have at least seven geometry textbooks, including two that I believe are copies of the same title and edition and two others that I believe are copies of two different, more recent editions of that same title. I believe at least six of the textbooks use propositions of the same form as p throughout the books. One edition of one of those titles, the edition I believe I have two copies of, is Geometry (2004) authored by Ron Larson, Laurie Boswell, and Lee Stiff, and copyrighted by McDougal Littell, a division of Houghton Mifflin Company. I believe it is the same title and edition I was afforded as a freshman in high school during the 2005-2006 academic year. That edition is my most favorite book. It is perhaps the most important and influential book of my entire life. I have highly respected it for over 11 years. I believe none of those six books are wrong.
Debate Round No. 2
DrCereal

Con

Clarification:
This new rebuttal is in response to the same argument used by Pro to support his "All Propositions are True" premise, but I'm rewriting it because I was apparently unaware of what he meant by "a rectangle". This new rebuttal should now properly refute his argument.

Rebuttals:



I. The Rectangles Argument

Instead of "a rectangle" referring to a singular rectangle in this argument, Pro contends that "a rectangle" is referring to all rectangles.

In the Rectangles Argument, Pro contends that "a rectangle" (i.e., all rectangles) is a square. He then contends that some rectangles are squares and some are not so the proposition is both true and false.

I will write his argument as a syllogism so as to highlight his reasoning:
1. A rectangle (i.e., all rectangles) is a square.
2. Some rectangles are squares so premise 1 is true.
3. Some rectangles are not squares so premise 1 is false.
C. Therefore, premise 1 is both true and false.

As you can see from the syllogistic form of his argument, Pro is falsely trying to equivocate all rectangles with some rectangles (specifically those that are and are not squares) in his second and third premises. By doing so, Pro arrived at a contradictory conclusion. If Pro were to avoid this strange and false equivocation, then he would quickly realize that premise 1 is simply false.

Like the "Rectangle Argument", my misunderstanding of the "Rectangles argument", this argument commits the fallacy of equivocation (see Source 1) and is therefore logically invalid.

Conclusion
Pro has made no progress supporting his "All Propositions are True" premise (and has instead only moved me to a different - yet the same - fallacy) so his argument for a god's existence still fails. The resolution has yet to be affirmed.

Sources
“Equivocation Fallacy.” Logical Fallacies, www.logicalfallacies.info/ambiguity/equivocation/.
holla1755

Pro

"A rectangle" is referring to a singular rectangle in my argument. It is not referring to all rectangles; it is referring to one rectangle.

"A rectangle is a square" is not equivalent to "all rectangles are squares." The former proposition is sometimes true, but the latter proposition is never true.

Neither is "a rectangle is a square" equivalent to "some rectangles are squares." The first proposition is sometimes but not always true, while the latter is always true.

Thirdly, "a rectangle is a square" is not equivalent to "every rectangle is a square." The former is sometimes true, but the latter is never true.

Fourthly, "a rectangle is a square" is not equivalent to "each rectangle is a square." The first is sometimes true, but the second is never true.

What "a rectangle is a square" is equivalent to is "one rectangle is a square." A rectangle is a square if and only if one rectangle is a square. Both propositions are sometimes but not always true.

I am not committing the Equivocation Fallacy on the grounds that "A rectangle," as mentioned in the proposition "A rectangle is a square," does not have to always refer to the same rectangle. "A rectangle" is allowed to take on multiple senses simultaneously. That flexibility agrees with common use, as is exhibited by the aforementioned editions of geometry textbooks.
Debate Round No. 3
DrCereal

Con

Rebuttals:
I. "'A rectangle' is allowed to take on multiple senses simultaneously."

No, it is not. When you use "a rectangle" to refer to more than a singular object (or a defined group of objects), you are commiting the fallacy of equivocation. (This time in the literal sense regarding definitions.) Since different rectangles have different properties, you are not allowed to use more than one as definitions for "a rectangle". Using them as such would mean the argument is referring to different things at different points within the syllogism which is the fallacy of equivocation.

II. "That flexibility agrees with common use, as is exhibited by the aforementioned editions of geometry textbooks."

This is an appeal to popularity and is therefore irrelevant.

Conclusion:
Pro has failed to support his "All Propositions are True" premise so his argument for a theistic god's existence fails. The resolution has yet to be affirmed.
holla1755

Pro

I disagree with Con's claim that "A rectangle" is not allowed to have more than one meaning at the same time. Con continues to cite the Equivocation Fallacy. Having multiple senses for the same word or phrase may sometimes be forbidden. However, it seems that sometimes it is permitted. Perhaps sometimes it is even obligatory or necessary. In the comments section for this debate, Con has conceded my "argument isn't technically using different definitions of the same word, ... ." I agree with what Con has conceded. The same definition of "A rectangle" is being used at all times. One possible definition for "A rectangle" is "A quadrilateral with four interior right angles." So, Con himself doubts that the Equivocation Fallacy applies in this case.

Perhaps in this case, the benefits of overriding the Equivocation Fallacy outweigh the drawbacks.

Con suggests I'm fallaciously appealing to popularity. Con suggests the nonimplication "A convention for expressing propositions is popular does not imply it is correct" is true. I agree with that nonimplication. However, in this case, given the context and my knowledge of the world, the popularity of the convention does seem to suggest the convention is correct.

Not only is the contested convention for expressing propositions popular, but it agrees with my own personal experience. It has worked very well in my life. I like the convention very much, and it has my own approval. It may have Con's approval, for all I know. Con may have used or be using the convention in his own high school geometry class or in his own work, without any conscientious objection to the convention.

Despite three rounds of refutation from Con, Con has failed to sufficiently rebut my premise that all propositions are true. My opening argument and its conclusion that a theistic god exists remain intact. Therefore, a theistic god exists.
Debate Round No. 4
DrCereal

Con

Rebuttals:
I. "I disagree with Con's claim that "A rectangle" ... Perhaps sometimes it is even obligatory or necessary."

Having different definitions throughout an argument (in this case, a rectangle referring to different rectangles throughout an argument) is a fallacy of equivocation and is always forbidden. It is so because of what you could do if it wasn't. By committing the equivocation fallacy, Pro came to the conclusion "All Propositions are True" which is clearly contradictory nonsense that demonstrates a flaw with using false equivocation. Pro can continue to claim he can commit a fallacy, but unless he can provide an example where committing a fallacy is absolutely necessary, he has no reason to suggest he can commit one.

II. "In the comments section for this debate, Con has conceded my "argument isn't technically using different definitions of the same word, ... ." I agree with what Con has conceded."

Pro fails to realize that my comment was in response to a flawed rebuttal and is no longer applicable to my refutation of his argument. I missed the punch, but the "Rectangles Argument" committed a non sequitur fallacy instead of a fallacy of equivocation - opposed to what I originally thought in my flawed rebuttal. Since Pro has pointed out that the "Rectangles Argument" still didn't represent his argument, that specific refutation made to his argument is no longer relevant (and it follows that my comment is also no longer relevant). Pro invoking my comment serves no purpose.

III. "Perhaps in this case, the benefits of overriding the Equivocation Fallacy outweigh the drawbacks."

Pro fails to realize that the drawback is that his argument is invalid and his conclusion is meaningless. A fallacy is called a fallacy for a reason: it prevents weird contradictions in logic (like Pro's premise) which are not allowed.

IV. "I agree with that nonimplication ... the popularity of the convention does seem to suggest the convention is correct."

Pro argues that it doesn't matter that his argument commits an appeal to popularity because it commits an appeal to popularity. His original point on convention is still irrelevant.

V. "I like the convention very much, and it has my own approval."

I like unicorns very much, and they have my own approval. Does saying this make unicorns real? No. Pro's personal opinion of an argument does not affect the validity of the argument. This is a non sequitur fallacy.

Final Remarks:
This debate was interesting, and I thank Pro for having it with me. :)

I apologize if my writing is strange at times. I revise it to make sure it is as accurate as I can make it in a short time, but I know I'm not the best writer.

Voters: Pro has failed to support his "All Propositions are True" premise so his argument for a god's existence fails. The resolution has failed to be affirmed. I encourage you all to vote Con.
holla1755

Pro

[Pro waives Round 5 as required by Con's second listed rule for this debate. The rule was stipulated by Con in Round 1.]
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NonCredenti 6 months ago
NonCredenti
I guess it's a nice mental exercise to tackle a unique argument, but this really seems like a joke. His entire argument and source is another debate which lost?
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 6 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
@Debating_Horse yeah religion is dead.

I've proven that my theory that families ate their children as their "Christmas Roast" because they were slaughtered for not believing in Christmas)
Link to the debate: http://www.debate.org...

I'm serious, they literally eat their own children as their "Christmas Roast"
_____________________________________________________________________________
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: PEPELEFROG// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: hi

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by Debating_Horse 7 months ago
Debating_Horse
Goddamn! DrCereal at it again! Nice one buddy! :D Score for Atheism, zero for religion! Makes me smile!
Posted by Barcafan99 7 months ago
Barcafan99
I understand. Good luck to you in this. I would not know how to respond to such a strange argument, so I congratulate you in your clear headed response.
Posted by DrCereal 7 months ago
DrCereal
Though his argument isn't technically using different definitions of the same word, it's making a similar mistake. This is why I decided to still call it a fallacy of equivocation.
Posted by DrCereal 7 months ago
DrCereal
@Barcafan99
I considered mentioning this point in my response, but the pedantic rebuttal, "The resolution doesn't specify that both propositions can't be true at the same time", could have been used against it.

It is an interesting position though; I agree.
Posted by Barcafan99 7 months ago
Barcafan99
Weird first argument. If all propositions were true then "God doesnt exist" would also be true.
Posted by DrCereal 7 months ago
DrCereal
To better understand the fallacy of equivocation read this webpage: http://www.logicalfallacies.info...

I will be posting this in my next post for better understanding of what I'm talking about.
Posted by missmedic 7 months ago
missmedic
The Christian god has to many descriptive failings, contradictions and limiting attributes to be a perfect god. I have never seen evidence for a supernatural being of any kind, let alone an invisible one.
You can't know for sure if any gods exist and, even if they do, they don't seem to care about us enough to justify worrying about them. Humans have invented thousands of gods over thousands of years and all have become myths...................all.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by JimShady 7 months ago
JimShady
DrCerealholla1755Tied
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 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: DrCereal wins a conduct point because holla1755 sent links instead actually explaining his argument in Round 1. You could have at least copy and pasted the argument, not just the link. S/G and sources are tied. Convincing Arguments go to Con as well. He points out the contradiction in Pro's argument, and I agree with his idea that equivocation fallacy is made by Pro many times. Pro argues that he does not commit this fallacy, but by comparing different squares with different characteristics at the same time, Con points out the flaw in this. Personally I agree that God exists, but the argument that "all proposition are true" has to be the biggest fail of an argument ever. An atheist could make a proposition that God doesn't exist, and that would defeat the argument. Big victory for Con.