The Instigator
Orangatang
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Inspired
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

God Most Likely 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 3 votes the winner is...
Orangatang
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 767 times Debate No: 40419
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Orangatang

Pro

Important definitions are provided below:

God - A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

Exist - To have actual being; be real. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

Rules:
1) 10,000 characters will be allotted for each round of debate. All arguments and sources must be made within these 10,000 characters; nothing within in the comment section should be counted. Any glitch which would allow a debater to bypass this 10,000 character limit is strictly prohibited.

2) Any tactic which could be reasonably seen as semantics is forbidden.

3) The burden of proof is actually shared. I will present a case to support the proposition that God most likely does not exist. Con will present a case to support the proposition that God most likely does exist.

Breaking any of these rules will result in an automatic loss (via voters awarding all 7 points to the other participant). By accepting this debate, my opponent accepts and agrees to these rules.

We will be debating over whether or not the existence of God is likely or unlikely based on accurate peer-reviewed evidence as well as logically sound arguments. If there is no compelling evidence for God's existence, then God is unlikely to exist. This means that belief in a God is unjustified and irrational. The burden of proof is on Con to show that a God exists. I would prefer one to accept the definitions above before accepting the debate. I would also like to point out that I do not want one to negate the resolution through semantic ploys. I want a genuine believer to argue and show his/her evidence and reasoning for an actual, observable, and provable God. First round is for acceptance. I hope to have a stimulating and worthwhile debate with Con.
Inspired

Con

I believe this debate will prove to be worthwhile in the end.

Since my opponent has not listed anything referring to the Bible, I assume using references from it is not restricted. If my opponent does not agree with or believe in the Bible, that is their problem and do in fact still have to present proof God does not exist. I would ask my opponent to present solid evidence for the absence of God. Since I have not found any myself, I find this to be interesting.

My main points are as follows:

1. Assumption of God's existence

2. God reveals Himself in
A. General Revelation
B. Special Revelation

3. God's intervention through history
Debate Round No. 1
Orangatang

Pro

Clearing the Air
I have found a mistake in my Round 1 opening where I may have confused Con and the readers (my apologies). Disregard the sentence that says, “The burden of proof is on Con to show that a God exists.” I would also like to urge any readers/voters that they should not take points off of Con for his short outline in the acceptance round.

Con misunderstands the shared burden of proof I have granted for the debate. In most situations it is up to the Theist to prove that God exists, not the atheist to show that God does not exist. However, the resolution and rules of the debate clearly state we are arguing over the likelihood for such a God to exist, and that the burden of proof is shared. I specifically created the resolution in this way to sidestep the need for proof and to facilitate a debate of arguments with evidentiary support for or against the resolution. Therefore I need not provide absolute proof for the non-existence of God, rather just show that the likeliness of this God existing is very low. In any case, it is ridiculous to ask any atheist for absolute proof that God doesn’t exist. It is synonymous to asking someone if they can show absolute proof that an invisible unicorn does not exist, in no place throughout the entire universe. Even if this unicorn wasn’t invisible, nobody can give absolute proof that the unicorn doesn’t exist. The default position in any case should be doubt and disbelief until proof is given for any extraordinary claim. In this respect, I have relieved Con to bring forth any such proof of existence of God rather Con only needs to support the claim that God is likely to exist. I hope this is clear now.

Religions and God are Man-Made:
Although the debate is centered on the existence of a deity, I would like to discuss various religions and show that not only are their teachings irrational, but their claims have lacking evidentiary support. I challenge Con to express to the readers and myself which religion he holds to be true if any so that I can address his beliefs more specifically. In the meanwhile, I will address the main monotheistic religions as a whole and show why it is more likely that man made God, rather than God making man. As some have probably guessed, I am an agnostic atheist (they are not mutually exclusive).

When it comes to the truth of religions, there can be only two possibilities. Either all religions are false or one religion is true. All religions cannot possibly be true because they all conflict one another (non-conflicting religions can be true as well but I find it unlikely for anyone to argue for this proposition). Christopher Hitchens logic on miracles is quite indisputable as I paraphrase: “What is more likely? That the natural order of the universe has been suspended in your favor, or that you have made a mistake?” Most individuals confuse a highly unlikely event to be a miracle, or might believe some radical event is a miracle if they and others do not have the capacity to explain it. This is not a rational way to approach the world. Highly unlikely events happen all the time, but when one of them happens in your favor, you suddenly label it a miracle. If a radical event takes place that may seem unexplainable, it is not evidence for a God, rather it is evidence that one should try harder to understand what exactly took place. Theists used to claim that God caused the rain, when in fact we now know that this happens due to the natural process of evaporation and condensation of pools of water. God is an unnecessary assumption to a universe that seems to operate perfectly without one. Regardless, it seems that God is taking great strides to hide himself from reputable scientists. God also seems to not care at all about a human certainty and consensus towards religions, theistic evidence, and even interpretations of scripture. It is what one would expect if you assume all holy texts to be man-made.

All miracles, stories, and myths from holy books are indoctrinated into children at an early age. If you have Christian parents, you are most likely to be a Christian if you have Hindu parents then you are most likely to be a Hindu, and so on. It seems as though one will stick to the beliefs given to them at the very early stages of their lives and hold them faithfully until death. I do not believe one will ever find the correct path to truth in this manner. Skepticism and logical inquiry is the greatest path to truth in both science and life. Rene Descartes once said: "I know how much we are prone to err in what affects us, and also how much the Judgments made by our friends should be distrusted when these Judgments [are] in our favor." If you want to truly know whether your religion is true, in an unbiased and genuine fashion then please apply the outsider test (http://wiki.ironchariots.org...) to your personal religion. This test basically asks one to question their own religious evidence with the same amount of skepticism as you apply to other religions. If any rational person does this in a sincere manner, then they should find themselves at a loss to which religion to believe. Ideally, they should ultimately become skeptical of all religious beliefs and concede that scientific evidence is our best bet.

The Origins of the Universe is Unknown
Theists are glad to announce and proclaim that God is the creator of the universe. However no person can actually provide any proof of this claim. If God is the creator of the universe then who created God? If one can claim that God had no creator and he is eternal, then one can say the universe is eternal as well. According to Occam’s razor (http://en.wikipedia.org...), since the universe is much simpler than a God, then the natural eternal universe explanation is more likely to be true. Adding in the unnecessary explanation of God, does not solve the problem in any sense, it makes the problem worse. One must now explain where God came from, and how this infinitely complex being operates and affects our world. The God explanation adds an infinitely more complex problem and fails to be a theory with any useful epistemic benefits. In reality, nobody knows the true origin of the universe and therefore we must keep our possibilities open:

1) The universe and the Big Bang could have been created by completely naturalistic causes.

2) The Big Bang could have been created by uncaused causes. Uncaused causes seem to occur all the time through spontaneous quantum phenomena such as radioactive decay (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and quantum fluctuations (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

3) The universe could have always existed.

4) God always existed, and created the universe.

Again, it is better to adopt the universe explanations as the universe is less complex then God and therefore more likely to be correct. It is up to Con to prove that (4) is more likely than all other possibilities.



Evolution trumps Intelligent Design
Evolution through natural selection along with abiogenesis is the best theory with predictive power which explains how life could have begun, and how species develop over time. Intelligent design is the theory that the universe was designed by an intelligent being rather than a naturalistic process such as natural selection. In any case intelligent design cannot be considered as a scientific theory (like evolution and natural selection) because it does not meet the following criterion (http://en.wikipedia.org...):

1. Consistent
2. Parsimonious (see Occam's Razor)
3. Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used in a predictive manner)
4. Empirically testable and falsifiable (potentially confirmable or disprovable by experiment or observation)
5. Based on multiple observations (often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments)
6. Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
7. Progressive (refines previous theories)
8. Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)
It is impossible for anyone to disprove the proposition that God did create the universe with intelligent design. Therefore intelligent design is unfalsifiable by principle, rendering it an untestable and unscientific theory. Furthermore, if God did create all species with intelligent design than why didn’t he make them optimal beings? It seems that God supports poor design by allowing humans to choke from the same hole we breathe with. We have too many flaws in our design to have been made by a perfect all-loving God.

God Cannot be Omnipotent or Omnibenevolent in any Logical Sense
The omnipotence paradox is as follows: If a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do (http://en.wikipedia.org...). An example would be: Can God create a rock so massive that he cannot move it? If the answer is yes, then God is not all-powerful because he cannot move this rock. If the answer is no, then God is not all-powerful because he cannot create this rock. Either way it is not possible for God to be logically omnipotent, this means that an all-powerful God could not exist in a logical universe. One may argue that God transcends logic, but it is up to the theist to provide proof and evidence for such a wild assertion.
God cannot be omnibenevolent (all-loving, or infinitely good) as well. To put it plainly:
1) If an all-powerful and perfectly good God exists, then evil does not exist.
2) Evil exists.
3) Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good God does not exist.

I thank Con for accepting this debate and await his rebuttal.
Inspired

Con

Ok, that is frustrating to write out your entire argument and then have your computer shutdown and lose it all. I will attempt to re-write most of what I said in the beginning.

"In any case, it is ridiculous to ask any atheist for absolute proof that God doesn’t exist. It is synonymous to asking someone if they can show absolute proof that an invisible unicorn does not exist, in no place throughout the entire universe. Even if this unicorn wasn’t invisible, nobody can give absolute proof that the unicorn doesn’t exist. "

1. Unicorns didn't create the universe. 2. What do unicorns have to do with the resolution?

"I challenge Con to express to the readers and myself which religion he holds to be true if any so that I can address his beliefs more specifically."

All religions are false. Does that simplify matters? As you very clearly stated in your argument, religions are man made, which I do not support. Along with man made religions comes a man made god, and man-made works and ceremonies which serve absolutely no purpose other than tradition. If you would like to address what I believe personally, it would be rather complicated to explain, since I do not claim to hold to associate with any particular denomination.

I have a belief that the King James Version of the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God, that God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, approximately 2000 years ago to die on the cross for man's sin, that He died, was buried, and rose again after three days to give salvation to mankind. There is no need to complicate a relationship with God through meaningless works and sacraments. What purpose would that serve? I hope that answers your question, I did the best I could.


"When it comes to the truth of religions, there can be only two possibilities. Either all religions are false or one religion is true. All religions cannot possibly be true because they all conflict one another"

You are correct. Man has created religion. God has established a relationship after man's disobedience with sin. I think a better term for it would be that all religions are false. Also, God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). Why would God justify multiple religions just so they would conflict? It wouldn't make sense.


"Highly unlikely events happen all the time, but when one of them happens in your favor, you suddenly label it a miracle."

Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts - Isaiah 8:17. I believe the time for most signs and wonders as described in the Bible do not happen now for several reasons. One, Christ has already died on the cross, and we have the message of the Gospel to tell rather than prove God through signs. Two, miracles in the New Testament were evidence that Jesus Christ was divine and not an ordinary man. Three, God uses miracles to work in the lives of those who have not accepted Him. God doesn't "thrill the masses" with miracles to make people believe. He works on an individual basis in the heart of every man.

"It seems as though one will stick to the beliefs given to them at the very early stages of their lives and hold them faithfully until death. I do not believe one will ever find the correct path to truth in this manner."

If that is true, then how can you explain this atheist turning into a theist? Via youtube:

"Skepticism and logical inquiry is the greatest path to truth in both science and life."

Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. - Carl Sagan


"Theists are glad to announce and proclaim that God is the creator of the universe. However no person can actually provide any proof of this claim. If God is the creator of the universe then who created God? If one can claim that God had no creator and he is eternal, then one can say the universe is eternal as well."

Atheists are glad to announce and proclaim that the Big Bang is the creator of the universe. However no person can actually provide any proof of this claim. If the Big Bang is the creator of the universe, then what created the Big Bang? If one can claim that the Big Bang had no beginning...then what caused the Big Bang? Nothing? The same argument can be used in reverse, and you come to the same conclusion.

"In reality, nobody knows the true origin of the universe and therefore we must keep our possibilities open."

You list some possibilities after this. So we must keep our possibilites open, but we can't believe in a God? I would rather believe in a God that has a purpose for a universe than believe I am the mistake of a singularity imploding/exploding creating everything we see today.

"The Big Bang could have been created by uncaused causes. Uncaused causes seem to occur all the time through spontaneous quantum phenomena such as radioactive decay and quantum fluctuations."

And that's science? It sounds more like science fiction. There is no evidence to support the Big Bang Theory, and yet there is the evidence of Scriptural prophecy to back up the concept of God. Sound logical? You decide. Option 3 states that the universe could have always existed. This is a possibility, but the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and entropy say otherwise. Could our galaxy really have drifted around the universe as long as it has without colliding with another? Probability says otherwise. This is just my pure speculation. I am simply eliminating all other factors except 4 as you so suggested. Although I am curious as to why both option 1 and 2 have to do with the Big Bang Theory, this seems to be your primary option other than 4. Why justify the both the existence and the origin of the Big Bang rather than believe in a God? It is because we are accountable to a creator...if there is one. That makes you think.


"Evolution through natural selection along with abiogenesis is the best theory with predictive power which explains how life could have begun, and how species develop over time."

Two problems with that. evolution has not been observed in the known universe. We do not see transitional forms within the fossil record, but rather fully formed animals with no evidence of transition. We do not see present day transitional forms either. This eliminates species evolution. As for adaptation, this can be observed, but it sure doesn't provide evidence for an origin of life. And yet you state that intelligent design cannot be considered as a scientific theory? God does not and cannot fall with the boundaries of science. Science attempts to explain what things are and why they work the way they do. If we could explain God, He would no longer be God.

"If a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform."

Could God create an unliftable rock? Yes. What's wrong with that? But the question is why would He? Also, God does not fall within the boundaries of our finite knowledge of physics. Could He? Yes. But did you know there is also something else that God cannot do? Look up Titus 1:2. God cannot lie. Does this make him any less omnipotent? Why should it?

"One may argue that God transcends logic, but it is up to the theist to provide proof and evidence for such a wild assertion."

I fail to see why evidence is needed and why this is considered such a "wild assertion". As stated before, if God could be explained (science, logic, whatever you want to call it) then He wouldn't be God. The very concept of God is unexplainable. Father, Son, Holy Spirit, a trinity, three persons in one. We cannot comprehend that concept. If we could, we could considered ourselves to be gods, and that isn't the case.


"1) If an all-powerful and perfectly good God exists, then evil does not exist.
2) Evil exists.
3) Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good God does not exist."

Watch the following clip I provide. I realize Einstein in fact did not say this as a child, but the video illustrates my point:;

"14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)" - Romans 2:14-15





;

As you said before, the burden of proof lies on both you and me. Can you prove evolution? Through some science that is evolutionarily (is that a word?) interpreted. Can I prove God? Through science (DNA, etc.) and Scripture (66 books? 40 some authors? Compiled over 1600 years? Plus prophecy) In short, we are equivalent in faith.


In closing, if you haven't watched any of the video clips, please at least watch the final one referring to DNA replication. I ask the question: How could that evolve without a designer?




Debate Round No. 2
Orangatang

Pro

This round will be mostly dedicated to rebuttalls, videos are linked at the end:

“1. Unicorns didn't create the universe. 2. What do unicorns have to do with the resolution?

The unicorn example demonstrates that asking for absolute proof of non-existence of ANY being is a ridiculous question to begin with.The default position should be disbelief until proof is presented FOR the existence of the being in question. I have yet to find any compelling or reasonable proof/arguments/evidence for God, therefore I do not believe in the existence of God.

“I have a belief that the King James Version of the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God, that God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, approximately 2000 years ago to die on the cross for man's sin, that He died, was buried, and rose again after three days to give salvation to mankind.”

The idea of vicarious redemption is an evil and immoral preaching of Christianity, as it places all of the punishments from ones sins on somebody else. One must accept the consequences of their actions in all cases, putting it on a mythical man who nobody can prove is the son of God is not only ridiculous but outright immoral. If this teaching was true then I could rape whoever I want then ask Jesus for forgiveness and be ready to do it all over again. This example may seem farfetched but it seems to be statistically prevalent among priests (http://en.wikipedia.org...). The Christian belief regarding how God deals with sin is rather silly, unreasonable, and ineffective. In a nutshell God sacrifices himself to himself in order to create a loophole in a law he wrote to forgive the sins of those he created as sinners. This type of thinking teaches people a false sense moral accountability. People must accept the consequences of their own actions to progress their moral character.

“If that is true, then how can you explain this atheist turning into a theist?

Allow me to clarify the quote you are responding to: “Most people* will stick to the beliefs given to them at the very early stages of their lives…” There have been many theists that turn into atheists as well, one example is Professor Bart Ehrman. He is a distinguished religious scholar and has written many good pieces showing why historical evidence for Jesus and his alleged miracles are so lacking.

“Atheists are glad to announce and proclaim that the Big Bang is the creator of the universe. However no person can actually provide any proof of this claim…”

Perhaps no absolute proof can be given that the big bang is the one and only cause of our universe however all our evidence points the fact that it is. This is the great difference between your position and mine. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts the big bang as a well-tested and sound theory with a large quantity of data to support it. This evidence comes mostly from modern cosmology. Listed below are the various categories of evidence which support the big bang model of our universe [talkorigins.org]:

1) Large-Scale Homogeneity

2) Hubble Diagram

3) Abundances of Light Elements

4) Existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation

5) Fluctuations in the CMBR

6) Large-scale structure of the universe

7) Age of stars

8) Evolution of galaxies

9) Time dilation in supernova brightness curves

10) Tolman tests

11) Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect

12) Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect

“You list some possibilities after this. So we must keep our possibilites open, but we can't believe in a God? I would rather believe in a God that has a purpose for a universe than believe I am the mistake of a singularity imploding/exploding creating everything we see today.”

If you read the possibilities, I explain that a God is indeed possible however it is unlikely according to Ockham’s razor. The real problem with postulating God as an explanation for everything, is that it doesn’t actually answer anything. Postulating God makes the problem even more complicated as we must now consider how did this God come into being, and how this infinitely complicated being carries out his actions. The universe operates perfectly well without the God assumption. Our understanding of this universe will only increase when we find real explanations for phenomenon rather than scapegoating on the laziest and most useless possible explanation, namely God.

“And that's science? It sounds more like science fiction. There is no evidence to support the Big Bang Theory...”

Everything I have listed has a physical data to support its scientific basis; if it sounds like science fiction to you then you are ignorant of modern and relevant scientific discoveries. You are the first individual I have ever come across to ever state that there is no evidence to support the Big Bang theory. Regardless, I listed the evidence above I do not see how you can refute it unless you believe that all scientists have a giant conspiracy to undermine religious doctrines (this argument doesn’t work either). The Big Bang model follows the laws of entropy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics perfectly without quarrel. Our galaxy will collide with the Andromeda Galaxy about 4 billion years from now and you say that the universe was designed this way? What a loving designer.

“Two problems with that. evolution has not been observed in the known universe. We do not see transitional forms within the fossil record, but rather fully formed animals with no evidence of transition.”

The Evidence for Evolution is Overwhelming:
Evolution is a scientific theory as it passes all of the criterion for one, Creationism does not pass any. It is common knowledge that the genetic composition of a population does indeed change with each generation for pretty much every species. Creationism, and creation science in general has quite a lot of negative hearsay and is not accepted by the scientific community because it has absolutely no compelling evidence. Below is a very short list of peer-reviewed scientific evidence that supports evolution:

1. Evolution reproduced in the lab or documented in nature:

a. Two strains of fruit flies lost the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring in the lab over a 4-year span ... i.e. they became two new species. (Easily repeated experiment.)

b. A new plant species (a type of firewood), created by a doubling of the chromosome count from the original stock (Mosquin, 1967).

c. Multiple species of the house mouse unique to the Faeroe Islands occurred within 250 years of introduction of a foundation species on the island.

d. Formation of 5 new species of cichlid fishes that have formed in a single lake within 4,000 years of introduction of a parent species.

2. Fossil evidence - The way fossils appear in the layers of rock always corresponds to relative development ... more primitive creatures in lower (older) layers. Absolute dating of fossils using radiometry. Constant discovery of new transitional forms. E.g. reptile-birds, reptile-mammals, legged whales, legged sea cows.

3. Genetic evidence

4. Molecular evidence

5. Evidence from proteins

6. Vestigial and atavistic organs

7. Embryology

8. Biogeography

9. Homology

10. Bacteriology, virology, and immunology


This list can go on well into the hundreds but I do have a character limit to uphold. As I have demonstrated, evolutionary theory has heavy evidential artillery on it's side, while Creationism has nothing but bare assertions. I must also point out that every organism is a transitional form because all species evolve so gradually. This means that one organism is not distinguishable from it's previous generation however after perhaps hundreds of thousands (sometimes millions) of years the new organism will be profoundly different from it's ancestors and so it may be called a new species. This is comparable to the gradual development of languages. Latin used to be a very popular language, then after hundreds of years new and seperate dialects of latin developed until eventually they were distinguishable from each other. Two of these are now known today to be Spanish and English, but it would be absurd to go through any one year in it's development and say that this year is the exact time when spanish was created. Rather all of the spanish language and it's subsequent dialects are the results of gradual transitions from one language to another, as all organisms in a species are transitional forms from one species to another.


"Could God create an unliftable rock? Yes. What's wrong with that?"

This question shows the logical impossibility of an omnipotent being. If God created an unliftable rock, then he cannot lift it. Therefore, God cannot be omnipotent or all powerful. Hope you understand why I posed this question now.


"The very concept of God is unexplainable. Father, Son, Holy Spirit, a trinity, three persons in one. We cannot comprehend that concept."

I can comprehend that it is logically incosistent. If you cannot comprehend the very concept of God, then how could you even argue that this God exists?


"In short, we are equivalent in faith."

We are definately not equivalent in faith. I do not hold any beliefs that are not based on evidence, and reason. You hold up faith as if it is a virtue to be proud of when in fact it should be what we all aim to avoid. Faith is the excuse people give when they have no good reason to believe something. Faith is an extension of gullibility, and if one accepts faith as a virtue to be tolerant of, then this person will have a very hard time differentiating between true and false beliefs.


"I ask the question: How could that evolve without a designer?"

Abiogenesis, along with evolution through natural selection. Please note that natural selection is not a theory which lets molecules arrange themselves by chance, rather it is a funneling mechanism in nature that only allows functioning molecules to survive.

Since you linked youtube videos, I will do the same:
http://youtu.be...
http://youtu.be...
http://youtu.be...

Inspired

Con

Inspired forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Orangatang

Pro

Unfortunately, Con forfeight round three and from my perspective Con did not rebutt my main points with any efficacy in round two. I would like to extend my arguments and keep the reading light for the voters/readers of this debate. I believe I have rebuked and showed the many flaws in Con's position, and the consistency in my position. The resolution stands, God most likely does not exist.
Inspired

Con

Inspired forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Orangatang 3 years ago
Orangatang
@martelmungo:

At least there is evidence of people that is verifiable to all human senses, and all scientific tests. There is no evidence for a God. I do agree that philosophers can indeed point out that others may not exist but this is an extreme position that is highly unlikely, it requires some brain in the vat unfalsifiable hypothesis. Many philosophers go through some solipsistic phase but later brush it off. Regardless, all the evidence points to the fact that people do indeed exist, and it does not matter that we do not have absolute certainty to establish this fact there is rarely anything one can establish with absolute certainty. We must therefore approach epistemology on grounds of relative certainty based on the greatest tools for finding truth which are skepticism, logic, and evidence.
Posted by martelmungo 3 years ago
martelmungo
Lol, but many philosophers also have good arguments they we do not exist.., So if we don't exist and God does not exist.. then are not.. we, as real as God? If we both do not exist.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 3 years ago
birdlandmemories
OrangatangInspiredTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
OrangatangInspiredTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
OrangatangInspiredTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF and dropped arguments.