The Instigator
benko12345678
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Ajab
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

God/Jehovah/Allah. Existing Entity or myth?

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 7 votes the winner is...
Ajab
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/29/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,451 times Debate No: 53640
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (41)
Votes (7)

 

benko12345678

Con

I was born into a Jewish family but personally I'm an agnostic. I would just like to hear some arguments of god's existance/nonexistance. please don't bring in any talk of miracles, some of them may be coincidence and should you say: But only god can do that' What proves that it was your god and not for example a Hindu or Shinto god?

Thank you
Ajab

Pro

Let me tell you about Kant's Moral Proof of God.
It so entails that:
1. If morality is objective, then there is a God.
2. Morality is objective
3. There is a God
Let us start by proving the first premise: that if morals were objective they would come from God. Firstly we understand that if morals are objective then they would surpass the boundaries of time and space, therefore their source would have to transcend the boundaries of time and space: such an identity can be God alone. Also let us understand that absolute morals would entail an absolute identity behind them: that identity would be God. A second argument for this will be fitted in the explanation of the next premise.
Now on to the second premise: morals are objective. Before giving the philosophical argument I believe this premise can be understood through common sense. In a strict sense we already believe that there are certain absolute morals. However our opponent would contest that no morals are absolute, lest he except that there is a God. So our opponent must show when it is moral to rape a 5 year old girl, he must show when it is all right to murder a child, delineate to us when it may be justifiable to genocide. For if there is anything which is an absolute moral it would prove God. However let us give the philosophical proof. We urge our opponent to read David Hume so not to make the mistake of thinking that which "is" is that which "ought". For if he thinks this he is making a claim, which he must defend with an argument. Let us though come back to the premise. The first argument is that the goal of morals is summum bonum. In simpler words the goal of morals is to make a person so, that happiness arises out of virtue, for only then there is justice. That when you do a good thing you are happy to do good. One does goodness for goodness' sake. Now no man can ensure that this happens. No one but God can ensure that if, let us say, I am acting moral then I achieve the summum bonum, this can only be given to me by God. Only God can allow infinite justice, can reward me so that my happiness stems from virtue. The second argument is that we cannot construct morals. If you try to understand the current "is" of morals then it is deeply connected to some previous morals. I contest that man other than empirical knowledge has only innate knowledge, and this knowledge of morality is innate. The idea of virtue is innate so it must be that not only does a soul exist, but it carries the algorithms of absolute morals. As for how we come to the modern morals it is through imagination. Imagination if viewed rationally has its bases in the "dying view of reality". All of our modern moral constructs stem from some original, absolute morals. I believe I have sufficiently shown that morals are indeed absolute. If they are not let our opponent first show when it is all right to rape a 5 year old, and then give a logical counter argument, or point out a fallacy.
Now that we have shown that absolute morals would prove a God, and that morals are absolute, ergo God exists.
As for whether it was my God (Allah), Yahweh, Jesus, Buddha, or Krishna, that is a separate matter, the debate was meant to argue the existence of God: the existence is sufficiently proven.
Ajab
Debate Round No. 1
benko12345678

Con


Think of a french fry, a simple french fry. Your ,,moral' proof is vague and a subjective thesis, interesting, but subjective. The proof of god's nonexistance can be summed up to a simple french fry.
Lots of questions are brought up by french fries. Does God want you to eat french fries? Does God want you to eat french fries, but only in moderation? Does God want you to eat French fries until you die from a heart attack and join him in heaven? Is there a set number of french fries you were destined to eat in life? Or do you have the willpower to choose how many french fries you eat? The question ultimately brings up whether or not willpower exists. Do we make important moral choices, or are we wound up like clocks, a set number of french fries inevitably crossing our paths/mouths as the universe goes on as it was destined to?
Morality presumes that we are accountable for how many fries we decide to eat, but where does this motivation come from?
It depends where the thought, “I should eat french fries” comes from. As Nietzsche pointed out, “a thought comes when “it” wishes, not when “I” wish.”
We like to think that there is a uniform “I” deciding what we order at McDonald’s, but the truth is we don’t know how our thoughts are made. They sort of just appear in our head, as if dumped into our consciousness off of some kind of conveyor belt. Everyone’s conveyor belt contains different machinery, depending on the balance of our hormones, the workings of our limbic system, the way that our brain learns to arrange words and ideas before they reach the surface. We’re all given our own equipment – we don’t get to choose what we’re choosing with. If we didn’t design our own brains, how can we be accountable for our own choices?
If we can’t be held accountable, we can’t be punished, making a “morally correct” amount of french fries impossible. God could still exist, but not necessarily the kind that is tallying up our right and wrong choices.
Ajab

Pro

For God's sake will someone comment and tell this person that to avoid the onus shifting on you, you have to give a proper counter-refutation, and then your argument.
Now firstly as in the other debate thread you did not at all give a refutation. I asked you questions: for one when is it (if morals are subjective) that you can rape a 5 year old girl, and the others I have mentioned. Secondly you did not point out a single premise, so I can only assume that you have accepted what I said; the only point being you do not feel we get to make decisions (even if this debate had nothing to do with free will). So the way I see it you have shifted the onus upon yourself to show that there is no free will, a concept made rather redundant after the continuum hypothesis and quantum theory.
Let me refute what you have said, even if most of it is verbiage. The question whether God wants you to eat french fries or wants to eat them himself is utterly absurd. I do not have to show what the absolute morals are, I simply have to show they exist. Your entire argument bases itself on the earlier and is then circular. I shall sill though refute it. We must understand that ought implies can, and therefore if I ought to do something it means I can. Also the continuum hypothesis shows to us we do actually have free will. As to a thought you have agreed that the thought is present (the absolute morals are present, being innate). Actually thoughts are triggered as series from out current mental conditions. One can sufficiently control what one thinks. Not to mention if one thinks something he/she is not bound to follow it. I may want to eat McDonald's right now, does that mean I am forced to? If you are propagating that then Sir you are far fetched, please provide evidence of all this.
You have not refuted my argument, you have made claims. My argument stands. Do not move away from the topic, attack my premises. and if you wish to show free will does not exist you will have to give a better argument. I have not gone in depth of the continuum hypothesis or philosophical reasoning as your current argument is illogical and needs clearer thought. I could not get through most of it due to its confused state, and lack of proper wording. I hope your next post is better.
Ajab
Debate Round No. 2
benko12345678

Con

First of all, when I asked the question: does my choice of say, eating at McDonald's right now come as a consequence of some ,,Higher power' or is it my own choice? it was not a claim, it was a rhetorical question...Please read my argument fully and try to understand it. Secondly, I did refute your argument, by providing a worthy question: Are morals set by man or god? Again, try to understand it. Thirdly, my argument did not serve the point of ,,having no free will' again, it asked the question. As I said, I am AGNOSTIC! I do not claim god does not exist, all I want is hardened proof. Morals are no way of providing evidence of god, they are simply ethical codes, rules, if you will. All morals were set by man. If things have gone differently, maybe raping a 5 year old girl WOULDN'T be considered immoral, maybe murder wouldn't be considered immoral. Maybe both of those things would be normal everyday occurences...you can't provide an argument of morals by comparing it to our own morals when you don't know what COULD be...
Ajab

Pro

Firstly you do not answer such lengthy logic by posting a question, you give a systematic refutation. Your first question is irrelevant to the issue at hand, and in any case I have already answered it. My entire argument shows how God gave us morals, show me a logical fallacy in my reasoning. The answer to that question was my original post. Later on I show how you cannot construct knowledge. If you are saying we can empirically reason out morals (something not even Hume said) give evidence so I may answer your argument. With me guessing this will not progress. What "could" be would be simply a mixture of what is. Humans are not capable of constructing knowledge (else we would be God).
Refine your writing, show me faults in my argument, after all I was making the claim here. Do not reply with vague questions because it becomes hard to answer, to even know what you are saying. We have one last round, make it count.
Ajab
Debate Round No. 3
benko12345678

Con

Again, you failed to answer the main question, how do you know morals come from god? How do you know anything comes from god? as I said, morals may differ depending on our upbringing. I understand you trying to explain WHY we have a certain moral code, but how do you know that it IS immoral and not just presented to be immoral? If in another timeline someone raped a 5 year old girl, how would you know it was unethical? It is logical you would make the argument that it SEEMS immoral and no one would do it, but how do you know? The same way we can't imagine any other letters being made, we don't know the sounds, thus we cannot make them. Maybe in another twist of events we would and we wouldn't know ABC...That's what doesn't seem logical about your argument. Your proof comes from our current way of thinking...You say god gave us morals, yet how do we know exactly what these morals are? Morals were given by man to man...
Ajab

Pro

Once more the opponent has not directly engaged my arguments, he has not pointed out premises, quoted me, or given a systematic refutation. His questions are all out vague and the answer to his questions are the very first posts themselves. However I will still engage him, even if this is hard because his ideas seem confused. Firstly he says how do I know that morality comes from God? Well I already mentioned that if morals are absolute then they would have come from God alone (see first post). Secondly as I said if we go back in time (something impossible because time is cyclic) we would see that their morals were quite like ours. Ours are simply mixed up. Setting up from the conviction that morality cannot be judged by empirical means (for what "is" is not what "ought as David Hume (an atheistic philosopher, and father of modern scepticism) has pointed out). Now all that knowledge that is not empirical (not once has my opponent tackled this point and you must judge from what has been said), is innate. If the knowledge of morality is innate then it is absolute (for innate implies by soul, which would come from God). The only way my opponent could have won this was to show that morality is in fact not innate, however he did not tackle the concept of innate dreams, nor of moral ontology. He continued to make the mistake of assuming that which "is" is that which "ought". As for whether we came up with ABC or any other language, we took the sounds of animals then using the power of imagination (the basis would still be in one mean) we bettered language to its modern front.
I do not have to show what the morals are, I simply had to show that absolute morals exist, something I believe I have done successfully. As my honorary opponent has not tackled with the major points, he has not engaged me, nor has he refuted me and has provided arguments which I have de constructed I believe this debate goes to me. I urge you to vote outside dogma, for who you feel compelled you the most.
Adieu my friend benko,
Ajab
Debate Round No. 4
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheLastMan 2 years ago
TheLastMan
This debate is a bit messed up. So, I shall abstain from voting on this one. I have read this debate two times to understand it properly. Though the french fry analogy was funny, Pro didn't meet his BoP. Proving the existence of God was not enough to meet his BoP.
Posted by Empiren 2 years ago
Empiren
Don't worry about it. To be honest it's more refreshing to see these types than the standard boring 1-3 points with the common "my opponent didn't refute X" lying I see in all the other debates.
Posted by benko12345678 2 years ago
benko12345678
It was my second debate, but it was only a few minutes apart from my first post so I was terrible at this point :P
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
lol leave it to blade to find a loophole. Thank you blade this was my first debate here, so I was not very good.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 1/3:

RFD:

Okay. This was an interesting one, if only because of the way it shook out.

In R1, Con makes a "soft" shift to the BoP, saying he would "just like to hear some arguments of god's existence/nonexistence". He also asks SPECIFICALLY for what proves that it's "your" (meaning Pro's) God, and not the God of someone else (Con gives the example of a Hindu or Shinto god).

Pro, in R1, responds with Kan's moral argument, claiming at the end that "As for whether it was my God (Allah), Yahweh, Jesus, Buddha, or Krishna, that is a separate matter, the debate was meant to argue the existence of God: the existence is sufficiently proven."

I don't think this if fair of Pro. Con clearly spelled out in R1 that he was:

A) Looking for an argument for God and

B) Looking for that argument to be towards a SPECIFIC god. Pro seems to be attempting to assert a literalist use of the title of the debate, ignoring Con's framework in R1, which was posted prior to Pro's acceptance. Further, even the title of the debate makes it clear that Con is questioning the SPECIFIC God of the Abrahamic religions. Pro can't just assert his way out of the ned for specificity, as far as I'm concerned. Even accepted at face value, Pro's argument doesn't address the motion fully. But he's got more rounds in which to do so.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 2/3:

As it stands, Pro HAS made a case for A god, but hasn't, in my mind, sufficiently addressed the full motion.

In R2, Con makes an argument regarding behavior. It's a strange argument involving a french fry, but the basic idea is that Pro's arguing against an objective morality by arguing against morality, by arguing against free will, and by arguing for a somewhat arbitrary nature to morality. It seems to be quite at a tangent, but it does technically address Pro's argument in at least some ways. I honestly don't find it compelling, but neither did I find Pro's argument particularly compelling.

In Pro's R2, he seems to start off in a frustrated manner. "For God's sake", Pro laments, "will someone comment and tell this person that to avoid the onus shifting on you, you have to give a proper counter-refutation, and then your argument."

Pro is still relatively new to the site, so I'm more patient with an outburst like this. But still, this is a direct attack on his opponent. Pro could have simply responded to the argument as presented, or he could have pointed out the problem he sees regarding the lack of a "proper counter-refutation", and gone from there.

This, along with his comment that most of his opponent's round was "verbiage", makes me find the tack he took to be in a bit of poor taste.

Pro argues that the concept of free will is "redundant" after "the continuum hypothesis and quantum theory". Now, Con did make an assertion in R2, and is obliged to support it or it's dropped. But I'd note that Pro hasn't fully supported the motion yet, so Pro's attempts to defend the half he DID support are at least somewhat of a waste of space.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 3/3:

The debate goes somewhat off the rails at this point. In R3, Con complains that Pro's objections to how Con rebutted weren't proper. Pro complains that Con can't answer his argument by posting a question. While it's true that, generally, that would provide a weak rebuttal, an unresponded to rebuttal stands pretty strong no matter HOW weak it is, and Pro hasn't responded yet.

In R4, Con asks again how Pro can know morals come from god, and how Pro knows anything comes from god. He argues subjectivity in morality.

Pro in R4 complains about a lack of formal response. To Pro: Not every debate is NECESSARILY a formal one. Syllogisms are not strictly necessary--they're just a better way to present your case. Innate, btw, does not imply "from the soul", though it's not a discussion that was really had within the deabte. Pro claims he's proven that absolute morals exist, even though he can't say what they are. He claims that that therefore proves god.

In the end: I was tempted to award arguments to Con, because Pro never addressed the resolution as a whole. But considering this debate went off the rails, considering the responses were a mess, considering there was no resolution explicitly outlined per se, I wound up nulling this vote. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Posted by Empiren 2 years ago
Empiren
DDO works in a very strange way.

Even if Ajab had put a completely stupid debate like " french fries = god" his debate would have been more valid than yours in the voting respect.

It's just odd.
Posted by benko12345678 2 years ago
benko12345678
Alas, Ajab will probably win :P I suck at philosophy. I don't even know why I started this debate. If anyone wants to debate me on any foreign policy issues, go ahead.
Posted by Empiren 2 years ago
Empiren
Don't worry guys, in about 5 days this will reach the top comments and be front page.

Especially with that 133 voting period.(lol).
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
benko12345678AjabTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: con really didn't do much
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
benko12345678AjabTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
benko12345678AjabTied
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: I'll keep this brief. Con is unreasonably shifting the focus of the debate, hence conduct. As for arguments, Con makes a lot of assertions, but never actually warrants anything. He's essentially saying that, since all of our moral decisions could come from a separate source than a deity (i.e. ourselves), that deity doesn't exist. That's not responsive to Pro's analysis regarding objective morality. It is not Pro's burden in this debate to prove that every moral humans hold to is objective, he only need show that some are. At the same time, I think Pro is placing an excessive burden on Con to show that there is morality in even the worst atrocities, though this is irrelevant as Con never actually gets to the point. So I give arguments to Pro.
Vote Placed by nikidavis 2 years ago
nikidavis
benko12345678AjabTied
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: Conduct goes to Pro because Con barely made an argument, he just asked a question. Convincing arguments goes to Pro he made arguments and Con barely did that. Reliable sources is a tie because neither of you needed one.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
benko12345678AjabTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 was the only one to give an argument that supported the resolution. Con provided only questions and some half hearted rebuttals.
Vote Placed by Empiren 2 years ago
Empiren
benko12345678AjabTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: The argument from morality Pro posted was taking leaps to say that if objective morals exist they must come from an entity. Both objective morals and the connection explaining that God existed through that were not proven. Con however didn't address Pro's debate entirely, so minus points for conduct. Although I thought the french fry example was pretty funny.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
benko12345678AjabTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro's first argument was extremely fallacious and Con highlighted this rather amusingly with fries. Objective Morality is an argument from Ignorance Fallacy, so it failed as an argument for God's Existence. That appears all that Pro could come up with, I was hoping for some real proof to be laid on the table. Just French Fries is hardly nourishing.