The Instigator
BradK
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
JohnMaynardKeynes
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

God Is Fake

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 8 votes the winner is...
JohnMaynardKeynes
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/6/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,597 times Debate No: 54164
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (66)
Votes (8)

 

BradK

Pro

With the God debate, it's not obvious who should have the BoP, and it isn't even obvious what the definition of God is. The structure of this debate should anyone wish to challenge me, is simple: Refute the resolution. I don't care how you do it or what you use to do it, be creative.

---

My argument is simply this: "God" is just a word and nothing more. Words are signposts, and without a destination a signpost is fake. That's why God is fake. He has plenty of "signposts" but none of them lead anywhere.

However, a good word like "bumblebee" is a signpost that points to a clear destination. You say to me "bumblebee", and I'll go find one out in my backyard and bring it back to you. Give me a signpost like "Arizona Crater" and I'll know exactly where to go.

But the signpost that says "God" leads nowhere. It's as if someone made up a city, painted a sign with the name on it and stuck it in the ground. There's no city, which is a metaphor for "There's no God either".

GLHF
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

I accept this challenge and will be arguing against the following resolution:

Resolution: God is fake

I'd like to point out from the onset, though, that this is an impossible debate for Pro to win. In order to do so, he must be able to prove a negative. He must be able to prove conclusively that there is no God, and that "God" is simply a word that we use.

This is where my observation comes into play: he has attempted to evade that the burden of proof falls on noone other than him in this debate, for he is the one who has made a positive statement, "God is fake." I however bear no such burden. All I must do is neutralize his arguments and demonstrate that, in spite of Pro's arguments, that God is a possibility. I don't need to prove his existence, or even demonstrate to you that his existence is probable.

But, before I pass this back to Pro, I'd like to bring forth a few definitions that I find pertinent:

"Agnostic" -- "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable" [1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

"Gnostic" -- "possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters." [2. http://dictionary.reference.com...]
My o

"Truth value" -- "The attribute assigned to a proposition in respect of its truth or falsehood, which in classical logic has only two possible values (true or false)." [3. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...]


So, to be brief, agnosticism vs gnosticism is merely a statement of knowledge versus lack thereof, respectively. You could be an agnostic theist, whereby you believe in a God or Gods, but do not claim to know whether there is one, and thus the existence of God doesn't possess truth value. Or an gnostic theist, whereby in your judgment, the statement does have truth value and you affirm that there must be a God or Gods. The same logic applies to atheism; you could either be agnostic and not claim to know, or gnostic, and claim to know that there simply is not a God.

Given ths resolution, and the fact that it does not say "God probably is fake" or "More likely than not, God is fake" my opponent is attempting to affirm a positive statement, and is thus falling into the category of gnosticism. So not only is his burden to demonstrate that the statement has truth value, but also that his remarks are in fact true.

As I said earlier, the statement has no truth value because you cannot prove a negative. He can't disprove God in much the same way that I can't disprove the flying spaghetti monster, or Bhudda, or that the world was created 30 seconds ago and we all were born with our memories.

The obvious disclaimer is that I am not stating that God isn't fake. I don't claim to know. However, my burden in this debate is not to prove that he isn't fake.

Conclusion
My opponent has assigned himself an impossible burden of proof, and therefore it is impossible for him to win this debate.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
BradK

Pro

As I open this up, I’d like to point out that it is possible to prove a negative. The simplest example would be “prove that 16 is not a prime number”.

The proof is incredibly simple. Prime numbers are wholly divisible by themselves and 1 exclusively.

16mod2 = 0 therefore 16 isn’t a prime number. I’ve just proved a negative statement.

No one is ever guaranteed to disprove every imaginable hypothesis about nature though; I have a feeling that this is what you are getting at when you say “he must be able to prove a negative”.

I would argue that you were committing the same crime that you accused me of, when you said. “It is impossible for him to win this debate.” You are planning to prove that negative statement true throughout the course of this debate, just like you accuse me of trying to prove a negative statement. That is blatant hypocrisy.

In order to win the debate, all I have to do is get more votes than you. Are you 100% certain that I’m going to lose? No you aren’t, because the resulting vote count being in my favour is well within the realm of possibility.

---

It’s possible that there could be a universal creator, and it’s possible there could not be. That’s why I’m trying to emphasize that what “God” is, is nothing more than a word which paints an extravagent picture in the mind, and the artist is cognitive fallacy.

I have the BoP to show why God is fake. My proof will become apparent to anyone who does not overthink. Literally, all I am saying is that what the word means, and what we think it means, are 2 different things. We think it means “all-powerful creator of the universe who exists somehow”. What it actually means is “fictional mythological character”. The strange parallel world that the all-powerful creator exists in is just our minds. In reality, there’s simply no evidence for him.

I’ll do an analogy with Bigfoot. Bigfoot is a fictional creature and it’s pretty obvious how he was fabricated. He’s supposedly a half-man, half-ape that walks upright, but he has never been scientifically confirmed. It’s easy to see how people came up with the idea though. Some guy saw something move through the bushes and filled in the rest (The brain is notorious for that; is there a square in the picture below for example?). Then other people’s brains started doing the same thing, except they hadn’t even seen the thing in the bushes, they just heard the bewildered woodsman describe his close encounter with an unknown creature. The creature was probably a rabbit startled by its own fart or a leaf falling off a tree and landing on its head.

God has the same kind of origins as Bigfoot. No one really knows who the first man was to say “There’s a God in the sky who created everything and has almighty power over us all”, but no such being has actually been observed (just like no Bigfoot has ever been observed). One of our ancestors was probably out in a field and saw lightning, and his brain incorrectly filled in the rest. It was just a static discharge, but our poor ancestor thought it was an angry man in the sky hurling blazing arrows down at earth.



---

If you agree that Bigfoot is fake, you should also agree that God is fake. Round 2 off to you.


JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

Pro begins by claiming that he can prove a negative because he can prove that 16 is not a prime number. This is because he can appeal to a positive -- the notion that he knows what a prime number is by virtue of the fact that mathematics is within human reach; it is so easily accessible to us that a third grader could define for you what a prime number is. So this argument is simply incoherent It is a non sequitur to say that, because you can prove a negative with respect to a positive, that you can disprove God.

He then goes on to concede the debate by saying that "no one is ever guaranteed to disprove every imaginable hypothesis about nature though." This is his burden of proof. He must disprove what he calls an "imaginable hypothesis." And he admits that his logic regarding proving a negative was faulty, as it isn't universal and doesn't apply to all negatives.

Then he accuses me of hypocrisy for claiming that he cannot win the debate. Let me cede one point: he could theoretically win the debate if I were to be banned, or if he were to salvage an unchecked votebombing campaign But, fairly, he cannot win this debate because he cannot possibly meet his own burden of proof.

He concedes the debate again by admitting that it's possibly that there could be a creator. He assigns a faulty definition -- "fictional mythological character" -- and suggests that the concept of God, as we perceive it and as both dictionaries and religions define it, is a myth and a distortion. That could be so. But his argument for this not cohesively developed. It boils dow to "there's simply no evidence for him." I don't need to present the Kalan Cosmological Argument or any similar theory to win this debate, however, nor do I need to provide evidence for God. The burden is on him, let me repeat, so the burden of evidence to prove a negative is once again on his side.

Pro goes on to say that, if you "agree that Bigfoot is fake," you should also agree that God is fake. But this is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, because that would imply that we are providing our opinions as to an issue. But we are not. He can assert that Bigfoot doesn't exist, and that someone likely thought the idea up and recorded it and that is the only plausible account that we have of him. That may be true. But can he prove conclusively with 100% accuracy that it is? Of course not. He even says that the creature was "probably a rabbit." His use of "probably" cuts to the crux of my argument, for this is the best that Pro can muster in proving a negative statement. He could be right or wrong, but ultimately the statement -- and this applies to both God and Bigfoot -- does not possess any truth value. We cannot prove them true or false because they are outside our realm of thinking, i.e., outside the realm of the natural world.

This brings us back to Pro's burden of proof. He has to prove conclusively, without a shadow of a doubt, that the statement "God is fake" has truth value. He cannot possibly argue that a God could possibly exist as he has. That statement alone negates the resolution and opens up the possibility for ambiguity. The resolution does not call for a preponderence of evidence, but for a conclusive affirmation, on his part, that God is fake. As he has proven, he cannot defend this assertion.


Conclusion
Pro has once again failed to fulfill his burden of proof, and I have refuted every argument that he has placed on the table thus far. He also has not addressed my distinction between agnosticism and gnosticism, though his concession that God could "possibly" exist is a hint that he subscribes to agnosticism, which is incapable with his position in reference to this resolution.
Debate Round No. 2
BradK

Pro

I am accusing my opponent of over thinking, & suffering neurosis. An unavoidable thought is that people who wish to believe in a god hide behind the debate platform. There have been plenty of debates in which "God exists" was the conclusion, which looks good on the theists. However I fear that those debates may substitute as scientific evidence for god in the minds of theists.

There are 2 worlds that we have to consider: the practical world, and the theoretical world. Nature and physics belong to the practical world, and so do questions about the creator of the universe. I need to explain how to prove things in these 2 worlds, because the methods are in stark contrast.

.

In the theoretical world:

Debates themselves belong to this world. Debates are pure theory, series of logic, and rules and protocols. To prove something in the theoretical world, you have to prove beyond any shred of doubt that something is true. My prime number example would also fall under this category. In the theoretical world, a series of logical arguments is all that is needed to confirm something with absolute certainty. Deduction is what makes this possible. Deduction is only possible however, if a model can be fully understood. In the theoretical world, models can be fully understood so this is not an issue.

In the theoretical world, a model called "God" was created. The model was created by man. And in the theoretical world, people have proven that god exists. They have constructed their own models of the universe, and a creator which they call god is not only possible, but necessary to explain their manmade models.

.

In the practical world:

This is the world of the scientific method; observation, hypothesis and theory are the only tools we have to prove things in the practical world. Pulling from what I've said before, neither god or bigfoot have been proven true in the practical world. Scientific consensus is the only thing that matters in the practical world, because the only way to prove any nature related hypothesis is through induction. Deduction does not work in the practical world, because we aren't sure if we can fully understand nature. There's no way to prove that the laws of nature won't change in the next second for example. Your argument, that since we can't prove God's non-existence his existence has to be possible, is deductive not inductive.

Just because god is real in the theoretical world, doesn't mean he is real in the practical world though. I fear that theists may unjustifiably claim that because there is evidence for god in the theoretical world (such as through debates and logic), that he exists in the practical world. That's a (pardon me) bastardization of the scientifc method. The only things that are true in the practical world are the things that have evidence to support them. God, nor bigfoot, have supporting evidence. Anything that doesn't have supporting evidence is "fake".

---

No one lives their lives as if goblins could jump out from any street alley and knaw their head off. It makes as much sense to live your life as if God will send you to hell for disrespecting him. This is a needless, stressful behavior. If a theists need absolute mathematical certainty that there's no goblins, bigfoots, or gods before you live your life as if they aren't real, then they suffer neurosis.

Quoting Carl Jung: "I have frequently seen people become neurotic when they content themselves with inadequate or wrong answers to the questions of life".

---

So to conclude, I can meet my burdon of proof in since the question of God's existence belongs to the practical world, not the theoretical world. The lack of evidence is the proof that God is fake, just as the lack of evidence for Bigfoot is proof that Bigfoot is fake.

To end my turn in this round, I will use a theoretical example to prove god can't be real: Living your life as if God is real despite evidence is neurotic. A loving god wouldn't want people to suffer so he'd give evidence of himself.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

There isn't much to refute here because Pro has attempted to change the goalposts of this debate and, in the process, dropped every one of my arguments.

Pro begins his argument with an ad hominem that I am suffering from a mental illness simply by pointing out that he is attempting to change the goalposts in this debate. This debate is not on whether there is evidence for a God, but whether he can disprove the existence of one. Again, he has dropped my arguments as to agnosticism versus gnosticism, and has failed to meet his burden of proof.

Then, he goes on to commit a bare-assertion fallacy by asserting that this is simply a matter of "hiding behind a debate platform," insinuating that I am a theist or that I have concluded comprehensively that there is a God, and this is simply a feel-good moment for me. None of this is true, however.

And he keeps insinuating that my role is to prove that God is real or that I asserted as much. Again, he is attempting to move the goalposts of this debate. He effectively conceded the debate, again, by saying that "there's no way to prove that the laws of nature won't change in the next second for example." This is completely true, and because of this, he cannot prove that God is "fake."

His dichotomy between theoretical and practical is outside the parameters of this debate. The resolution did not specify in which world -- even if I were accept the dichotomy -- God is fake. So what he is doing in this instance is working backwards from his conclusion is making a number of bare-assertion fallacies.

First, the theoretical world as he describes does not hold that God is real -- only that he could be real, and many people have advanced arguments to this end -- e.g., Kalan Cosmological Argument, Prime Mover argument, etc. This is a world in the abstract. Because it is abstract, there is no evidence for God in this world in much the same way that there isn't in the practical world.

But the real problem with Pro's argument is his framing of the practical world. I accept scientific deduction and logic as the basis for discerning reality. But his assertion as to how I reason that God could exist is misleading.

Here's a modus tollens syllogism summarizing my argument:

A: If something is not disproved or cannot be disproved, it is in principle possible.
B: God has not been disproved and cannot be disproved.
C: God is possible.

He admits that we aren't sure whether we can understand nature -- which, by the way, is an argument in support of my case, because if we can't understand nature, then we surely don't understand its limits, how it can to be, etc.

His argument develops into an attack on theists, which is not only a complete strawman of my argument, but is not within the parameters of our debate.

He asserts that the only way to prove something is through induction -- thorugh reasoning from the particular to the general. This doesn't hold in all scenarios, however, and he provides no evidence whatsoever (1) that deductive reasoning could form a basis for ascertaining truth -- e.g., I observe X in nature and thus I deduce that X exists in this world (2) that, even if his assertion were true, that it proves his case.

He claims that the only things that are true in the practical world are things substantiated by evidence. I agree. But he goes on to commit a non sequitur falalcy by saying that "anthing that doesn't have supporting evidence is fake." He has dropped my argument that the question of God has any truth value whatsoever. The problem with his argument is that the fact that there isn't evidence for God does not disprove God, and he has admitted several times that it is a possibility. His use of the word fake, which is the crux of this debate, is fallacious and flat-out deceptive. We don't call something unsubstantiated fake; we call something that we have proven to be fake, fake.

His appeal to neurosis and attempt to bash theists is, again, outside the scope of this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
BradK

Pro

I can't disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist in the first place. In other words, I can't "un-prove" that God exists, because no one did any "proving" for me to reverse. I'm trying to explain what "God" itself is: fake. What I mean by "God is fake" is that he is fictitious, made up, imaginary, not real, non-existent, never observed, fabricated by man, akin to every fictional character, and made up.

I didn't drop your gnosticism vs agnostisticm argument. I said that gnosticism is impossible in the practical world, and the existence of god is a practical question. Ergo the best that anyone can do with any scientific claim is an agnostic conclusion of any level of probability. I never shifted the goalpoasts, they were always in the practical world because god's existence is a practical question. You tried to shift the goalposts into the theoretical world.

Even though we can never be certain, we can be very nearly certain about conclusions in the real world. I don't have to like that we always have to be agnostic on practical matters, and neither do you. It's just a fact of reality; nothing is certain. Things are only certain in theory.

I don't think that you have personally "concluded comprehesibly that there is a god". I'm trying to show that god is fake, so it wouldn't make sense that I think someone else proved that god exsits. I don't think that anyone ever has.

---

I think that the dichotomy of practical and theoretical is vital to this debate. God is a theoretical model. In the real world, that model doesn't fit. The model doesn't explain or predict anything.

On a side note I actually find it hilariously ironic that you say in theory, it "does not hold that God is real -- only that he could be real". Seems like the debate has been turned upside down; here you are arguing against the notion that god must exist in theory, while I'm arguing that there are in fact theoretical reasonings as to why god has to exist.

---

Induction vs Deduction

I can't think of a single scientific discovery or fact or theory that was discovered deductively. Some of the particles in the standard model were predicted deductively before they were discovered, but they were proven to exist through induction. You have to give me an example of a scientific fact that was discovered deductively in this debate. The reason is if the only way we can learn about reality is inductively, then my theoretical/practical world dichotomy has to be valid. It has to be valid because nothing can be proved through induction; induction is the process of making generalizations from observations. If you have to base conclusions off observations, and you have no control over what you observe (meaning any imaginable observation would be fair game, even one you could never imagine), then you can't prove anything.

Here's a video clip relevant to what I'm discussing (by someone much smarter than me).

http://youtu.be...

(up until 29:30)




So you say that something unsubstantiated isn't fake. My question for you would then be, do you think that bigfoot is real or fake?
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

Pro begins by offering a list of adjecties to describe what "God" is and claims that he can't "unprove" that God exists because no one proved him. Again, that is not the goal of the resolution nor is that my burden. He keeps trying to wiggle his way out of the resolutiom, but doesn't acknowledge again that he most prove conclusively that God is "fake."

You didn't mention gnosticism in an earlier round, actually.

My opponent accuses me of shifting the goalposts to the theoretical world. This is laughable. The resolution never specified practical versus theoretical.

In fact, God fits into the theoretical world as well as the practical. He argues that this world is full of logic and theory. That is, in fact, the only way that one could argue for the existence of God: you could make a philosophical argument for a prime mover of sorts. That isn't to say that there aren't practical-world applications: realistically, though, science hasn't proved his existence.

He then concedes the debate again by saying that "the best anyone can do with any scientific claim is an agnostic conclusion." This is quite right, because things that are deemed true today can be disproved tomorrow, etc. Therefore his argument that something currently unsubstantiated, that has not been disproved, is "fake" is a mere fantasy.

He then says that nothing is certain in the real world. Well, Rene Descartes would disagee with you, but let's go along with that. Sure, nothing is certain. You said that we're debating the practical world. If, in the practical world, nothing is certain, then you can't be certain that God is fake. Therefore, you are once again negating the resolution.

And, again, I am not allowing you to shift the goalposts to argue merely for the "practical" over "theoretical world." But even if I did, this debate would sitll be in the exact same point.

No, things aren't certain in "theory," either. That is why they're theory. Even scientific theories which have been tested again and again are technically not 100% certain because they're falsifiable and the results are available for others to disprove.

Pro then misunderstands my argument. I claimed that he was arguing from the basis that I'm a gnostic theist and basing my argument as such. But this is surely not the case.

He represents the "thereotical" versus practical model. Again, this is outside the parameters of the debate, and simply because God hasn't been proven yet by science does not make it fake. For all we know, he could be proved 30 or 40 years down the road. There are various medications that have been discovered over the past, let's say, century, that we didn't know of prior to that. Before then, was the possibility of curing polio "fake?" Of course not. But the statement "we will never cure polio" had no truth value because we could never actually know the limits of scientific inquiry.

Pro again misunderstands my arguments. I'm not arguing against the idea that God exists in theory, nor am I arguing that he couldn't exist in the practical world. Pro ha snot proven that it is impossible for God to existence theoretically and even admits that he could exist in the so-called practical world. It's also interested that he admitted earlier that God has evidence in the theoretical world.

Basically, he's arguing in circles.

He then claims that I have to give him a scientific fact discovered deductively. I have no such burden of proof, acutally, so demanding is outside the parameters. But here is one I already gave:


A: I see X
B: I deduce that X exists in this world.

The theory of perception, one compatible with that of Descartes, Reid, and Joel Smith, is inherently deductive.

Then he argues that induction is making conclusions about obserations. Wrong. It is arguing from the general to the specific. Arguing from the specific to the general is deduction. But none of this proves his argument.

Then he cites a YouTube clip as part of his argument. I will not allow this, however. He has to make the argument himself.
Debate Round No. 4
BradK

Pro

Last round, time for some fun :)

---

Here's a synopsis of what I'm going to do in this round:
  • I'm going to respond to everything you said in round 4, correcting your mistakes
  • Then I'm going to point out an argument you dropped
  • Also I'm going to show why asking me to prove god doesn't exist is a red herring (Notice the word choice, "fake", not "non-existent")

---

I have conclusively proved that god is fake, just like I have conclusively proved that bigfoot is fake (see round 2).

I did mention gnosticism in the last round. I said the best that anyone can do with any scientific claim is an agnostic conclusion of any level of probability. That's another way of saying gnosticism is not possible with scientific laws/theories. I expected you to put that together but I guess I overestimated your ability.

The reason that I never mentioned theoretical/practical in the first round is because I didn't think I needed to. The ramming block you are using against me, that "god's non-existence can never be concluded" screams that god is only an imagined/theorectical creature. Bigfoot's non-existence can never be concluded either. Does he live in our imagination or out in the woods? Or in other words, does bigfoot live in theoryworld or practicaland?

So you say that I conceded the debate by pointing out that science is exclusively agnostic. That's a red herring. Basically, the red herring is the word "non-existent". The resolution uses the word "fake"; They are 2 different words. Fake creatures like god, or bigfoot exist in only our imaginations. Non-existent creatures haven't even been conceived of or observed, such as post-singularity humans (we don't even have the computing power in our brains to imagine this species, and the human brain is, as of 2014, the most powerful imagination tool. Computers aren't as creative as us in 2014).

In your next paragraph you say since nothing practical is 100% certain, the resolution has been negated. In this paragraph you use the word "fake", but you really meant to say "non-existent". See above for the difference between "fake" and "non-existent".

... Things ARE certain in theory. I can't help but overreact at this blasphemy. Is the sum of the squares of two real, positive numbers ever NOT equal to the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle formed by them? NO, NEVER. Things can be certain in theory. You confused "pure theory" (such as mathematical theory) with "scientific theory", and are talking as if they are the same thing. They aren't. Scientific theories actually fall under the practical world in my dichotomy. I know, it's confusing but use your brain and understand what I'm getting at.

In your paragraph about curing polio, you are mixing up the words "fake", and "non-existent". I'm ashamed you are doing this so often. See above for the difference. I agree with what you are getting at though if you replace the word "fake" a different word.

"A:I see X
B:I deduce that X exists in this world.
"

That's nonsense. Vision is photons striking your retina. You can't prove that there's no magic barrier around you that emits photons and creates the illusion of X. You induce that X exists. The scientific community agrees no inductive evidence has ever shown god is real. Unless you have a deductive argument, god's a phony fictional character. But no scientific fact has ever been arrived at through deduction in the last couple centuries of modern science. Good luck with that. Here's a visual to make my dichotomy clear:



---

You refused to answer if bigfoot was fake or real. If you think bigfoot is real, no one would take you seriously. The reasons for thinking bigfoot, or god, are real, are the same (round 2).

---

Is god fictional? Yes. Just as fictional as bigfoot. Bigfoot fake, God is fake. Parallel reasoning.

---

So please, for the love of god, understand the difference between "fake" and "non-existent". If you don't get the difference then I've been talking a wall this whole time. The resolution says "god is FAKE".

Thank you.

JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

My opponent claims that he has conclusively proved that God is fake, but he has not. He has only claimed that we have no evidence of a God, but has not proved that the concept of a God is in principle impossible. He has admitted on several occasions that this is in fact possible, and thus has negated his own resolution.

You mentioned gnosticism last round, not the round before -- that was my only remark. You keep attacking my abilities, and went on to even suggest that you were "talking to a wall." Please, voters, take account of the conduct violations on Pro's end.

Pro goes on to re-introduce the same point he has repeated again and again: that God is fake because, so far as we know from available evidence, we cannot prove his existence. He has not demonstrated that he can prove a negative -- that God actually does not exist or could not exist. Admitting that science in the agnostic in the sense that it is flexible and accomodates new discoveries is, on his end, a concession, for it admits that scientific inquiry is limited to what we know now. It's doesn't matter how many times you attempt to change the goal post and distinguish between practical and theorotical because the question is ultimately irrelevant, and in neither case may you prove or disprove the notion that God exists. Because my point that this question has no truth value stands, I have negated the resolution.

His differentiation between fake and non-existent is unfounded; fake refers to something that has been counterfeited -- that we know to be a sham. Non-existent is something which does not exist, which is subject to agnosticism because we cannot prove existence versus lack thereof. But this same logic extends to "fake," for Pro must prove that God is not only counterfeit, but counterfeit in virtue of the fact that he does not exist. He can't prove that, nor has he.

I never confuse pure theory and scientific theory; I made the distinction clear that even in scientific theory ambiguity may exist. By virtue of the way that YOU defined theoretical world, debate is plausible -- and things are not certain. To say that something is certain is to suggest the existence of absolute truth: that I know for a fact every pertinent detail of my epistemology. We do not, nor can we ever given available data. My opponent is merely grasping at straws. No matter which world we use as a lens through which to view this question, the same distinction holds.

He is also wrong on the polio example. If something can be proven to be non-existant, it must as a condition of that be fake. If it is not fake, then by definition it exists. This distinction is utterly meaningless, and hinges again on truth value -- an argument my opponent has dropped. My opponent can attack me all he would like, but the fake of the matter remains that he is offering meaningless silly arguments and dropping my claims left and right.

He even went on to address my statement on deduction, and even concludes that "you can't prove there's no magic barrier around you.....". Does he not realize that he is once again conceding the debate, this time by noting that you can't prove a negative?

I don't need to address whether big foot exists or not because that is not the subject of this debate. Like God, the question of whether he does has no truth value, so any attempt to prove his existence is a demogogic attempt to move the goal posts.


Here's how I believe you should vote:

Arguments: To me. Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof and has tried to move the goal posts in several attempts.
Conduct: To me. Pro has attacked me on multiple occassions, suggested that I have a mental illnesses, claimed that he's arguing with a wall, attacked theists viciously, and questioned my intellectual ability.
Sources: Tied. This debate didn't involve sources.
Spelling and grammar: This was a tie so far as I could tell. Neither of us made any noticeable errors.


Conclusion:
My opponent has not fulfilled his BOP. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
66 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BradK 2 years ago
BradK
Thank you for the debate. I gotta say it was a greasy debate since you agreed with me but twisted my words, but congratulation none the less. I'm happy because I refined how to say what I wanted to say, to a less confusing wording.
Posted by BradK 2 years ago
BradK
man what hilarity eh
Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes 2 years ago
JohnMaynardKeynes
On whether God is "fake?" No, we generally agree on that.
Posted by BradK 2 years ago
BradK
So would you want to have the real debate?
Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes 2 years ago
JohnMaynardKeynes
Not even close to a resolution jacker, and even you admitted the resolution was impossible to prove.
Posted by BradK 2 years ago
BradK
Your just a resolution-jacker, Mr. Keynes. You insisted it be about "evidence", when I had intended it about "source of perception".

I'm not going to let it go until you debate me with the real resolution lol. I have more persistence than most people have patience.
Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes 2 years ago
JohnMaynardKeynes
I understand and agree with what you're saying. DanielCornelius. But that type of reasoning was in fact appropriate for the resolution at the time.

And, not to mention, I think saying "God doesn't exist" is about as illogical as saying "God does exist." Both claim knowledge where there isn't any.
Posted by DanielCornelius 2 years ago
DanielCornelius
These arguments are always rough because there is no way to disprove or prove the existence of deities. Why do you think religion is still alive? It's because you cannot disprove what they believe in. No matter how much us atheists push the burden of proof on religion, they will continue to say, "aha! well, you cannot disprove the existence of god; therefore we are correct! Now give us your money! Er- I mean- we accept donations, it's what god would want..."
Posted by BradK 2 years ago
BradK
@bman It's not the same as the bible. If atoms were made up science fiction, and the only reference we had to them was a collection of ~2000 or ~1700 year old writings, then I'd agree with you.

The reason that atoms are different than miracle births and worldwide floods is... atomic and chemical theories make accurate predictions about experiments. Some elements were predicted before they were found, like the elements above 110 on the periodic table. However, the bible miracle stories hardly fit with reality. There's no evidence of a worldwide flood. If jesus was born of a virgin, he would have been a woman, you can look up biological reasons for that.

Ultimately though, for the people that deny scientific facts, there are experiments that can be done to prove to them that the facts are true. And people deny scientific papers all the time; that's part of the peer review process. In fact science LIVES on doubt. Whereas the bible lives on faith, or in other words the bible is only believed because people want it to be true. No scientist bases the accuracy of a hypothesis on the wanting of it to be true, what they want is to truly figure out how nature is. With religion is the opposite; theists want their religious beliefs/hypotheses to be true, in SPITE of how nature really is.

---

Atoms are not comparable to Jesus in the way you are trying to compare them. And NO you DON"T KNOW that atoms exist based on books. Like I said, you are taking it on faith that those books are true. If you don't believe the science text books, I encourage you to go to a lab and see the experiment done with your own eyes. That's what physicists do when they don't believe a scientific theory. If you don't believe scientific theories, you can do the same to prove to yourself whether they are true or not.
Posted by bman393 2 years ago
bman393
Yes but that is the same as the bible. A sertain people have seen him. Only a sertain people have seen atoms. I haven't seen them but I know they are there based on books
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 2 years ago
funwiththoughts
BradKJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used ad hominem attacks by suggesting that Con was mentally ill, Shifting the burden of proof, which is on him as Pro and Instigator, fallacy fallacy and non-sequitur by suggesting that if God was conceived in the same way as Bigfoot, he can't exist, and finally he repeatedly outright admitted he couldn't prove his position.
Vote Placed by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
BradKJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro needed to prove his claim that God is Fake, which he failed to do. Despite the fact that I fully agree with Pro's initial statement, Con stayed on topic and provided more convincing arguments. Pro also attempted to shift the debate around and redefine words, but ultimately, trying to prove that God is Fake, and then admitting that we can't prove or disprove the existence of God, causes his argument to crumble around him. Pro took on a BOP that is virtually impossible to defend.
Vote Placed by KingDebater369 2 years ago
KingDebater369
BradKJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: 2 Excellent debaters. After reading the first argument of con , I thought pro was done for, but he came back nicely. Overall - very good debate.
Vote Placed by progressivedem22 2 years ago
progressivedem22
BradKJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con won this debate hands down. Not only did Pro attempt to change the topic to "There is no evidence for God," but his conduct was deplorable. He dealt himself a nearly impossible BOP and he couldn't uphold, so points to Con.
Vote Placed by sengejuri 2 years ago
sengejuri
BradKJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro destroyed his entire argument when he wrote in round 2: "It's possible that there could be a universal creator." Pro essentially admitted defeat by making that statement.
Vote Placed by Mhykiel 2 years ago
Mhykiel
BradKJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 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: Pro makes some common non sequitor arguments. "If you accept bigfoot fake, then you accept god is fake." I fail to see the connection between one and the other. BradK by admitting "IF" with no premises to support the conclusion either way, did not meat his BOP for the resolution. The first few rounds of Pro's argument argue that "god" the word is not the universal creator that could be possible?? Sounds like a god by any other name is fake. But this is semantic like a rose by any other name. I don't think he even proved that what some people conceptualize when hearing "god" is not a universal creator or possible god. Like an idealist think god is the constructing mind for the observable universe. Sources were either not relevant or definitions so tie. Con merely has to bring reasonable doubt that "God could be true" to make the resolution invalid. argument Con.
Vote Placed by Christian_Debater 2 years ago
Christian_Debater
BradKJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: For sources I put a tie because Con's sources didn't really prove his argument. Conduct goes to Con for Pro's negative comments. If everything was kept civil, it would've just been a tie. Tie for grammar and spelling, no difference between the two. Pro never cited his definitions he used or his claims. Pro also proved himself wrong "It?s possible that there could be a universal creator, and it?s possible there could not be." That quote alone ends the debate, because that is the main problem in stating God is fake. You have to prove it is fake. Pro claims that something without evidence is fake, however, things with evidence supporting it can be fake too [Heliocentrism]. There has to be evidence to prove something is a fact or fake. Especially when we read the definition of fake - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fake
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
BradKJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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: Con kept attacking Pro for lacking BOP, yet did not quite get the gist of Pro's argument, which only required us to believe that God could simply be an illusion of the mind, which was not challenged well enough by Con, Pro pretty much demonstrated that God is most probably a figment of the human imagination and owes it's entire existence to humans exalting their imaginary character as real. Though I think Hallucinations may have been the originator of God(s), but I could be wrong. Both debaters committed Ad-hominem attacks, but Con overdid it.