The Instigator
SoSilly
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points

God does not exist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,405 times Debate No: 13879
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (10)

 

SoSilly

Pro

I will keep this short and simple. There is no proof for God.

There is an infinite amount of things we can't prove/disprove at the moment. This includes God. Some of these things will mean God doesn't exist.

This suggests the chances of god existing with out any evidence or reasoning is infinitesimal. This basically means there is as good as no chance for God existing.
Ore_Ele

Con

"There is an infinite amount of things we can't prove/disprove at the moment. This includes God. Some of these things will mean God doesn't exist."

The exact same argument can be used for the existence of God, so this is an illogical argument and does not prove anything.

If my opponent has any more Proof that there is no God, I would like to refute that.
Debate Round No. 1
SoSilly

Pro

Just to clarify, this means there's an infinitesimal chance of God's existence if there's no other reason or evidence as to why God exists.

The chances are less than rolling a hypothetical dice with BB[BB(9999)] sides, and having it land on '1'. Basically as good as zero. [1]

If you say I can't say God doesn't exist. It's like saying I can't say I exist, because there's an infinitesimal chance I don't.

But I say I do exist, I think therefore I am. Therefore God doesn't exist.

1. http://www.scottaaronson.com...
Ore_Ele

Con

You're link does nothing to prove your case, only defines busy beavers.

As you said, there are infinite things we can't prove/disprove (which is incorrect to begin with, there is an unknown amount things we can't prove/disprove), among these is proof for God or against God.

I am still waiting for some kind of logical proof or evidence as to the debate "God does not exist."

I need something to work with.
Debate Round No. 2
SoSilly

Pro

If you can make 'God' you can make an infinite number of thinks with the same nature. (Not able to prove/disprove)

You could make it so they could all exist at once, or any combination including non at all. But not all of them include God. By the workings of infinity God might as well be only one of these.

Yes it did only define Busy Beavers, I thought there was a good chance you wouldn't have heard of them so saved you the time of researching about it.

There is no evidence against God, God is made so we can't use evidence for or against 'him'.

To make it more obvious the point I'm trying to make, the chances of God are infinitesimal, basically from 0 (impossible) to 1 (certain) God is 9/9 - 1. Which = 0. Impossible.

How does that work? http://en.wikipedia.org...

That explains how it works.
Ore_Ele

Con

"If you can make 'God' you can make an infinite number of thinks with the same nature. (Not able to prove/disprove)

You could make it so they could all exist at once, or any combination including non at all. But not all of them include God. By the workings of infinity God might as well be only one of these."

You make the mistake of only looking at the possibility if God was the "only" unprovable thing (which would have the odds 1/infinity). However it is possibly that there are 50 things, of which God is one (and so those would have the odds of 50/infinity), it is also possibly that there are 1,000 things, or BB[10] things. What we end up with is a possibility of infinity/infinity, which is an indeterminate form. This states that the odds of God are simply unknown.

It is also faulty to say that God cannot be proven. God cannot be proven with our current knowledge and technology, that is not to say that he will never be able to be proven. We can look at evolution as an example. We cannot prove evolution (as you link shows) with the limited amount of data we have witnessed. However, in 5,000 years (assuming detailed records are kept), we may then be able to prove it.

Another example in the past, was calculating the speed of light. Isaac Beeckman attempted to calculate the speed of light back in the early 17th century, however he lacked the technology to do it (obviously), so at the time, it was unprovable, but now we can (and have). Many scientific laws we unprovable when they were first theorized, but now have been concretely proven or disproven. God will be no exception, at some point he will be proved or disproved.

I'm not saying that there is a God, nor that there isn't. But there is no proof for or against, and so no way anyone can logically say "God does not exist."

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SoSilly 6 years ago
SoSilly
Near enough as can be.
Posted by Hound 6 years ago
Hound
God can't even be proved by logic. Nor can he be disproved.

No one knows for absolute sure how God really is, it's all faith.

You can reason all you want, but is there truly an absolutely right or wrong answer?
Posted by warpedfx 6 years ago
warpedfx
lay out some of his properties, then we'll talk. like, say an immaterial, timeless, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent mind that is god, as say William Lane Craig defines god as (as well as maximally great, but that's extraneous i'd say)

This god is disproved on account of logic.
Posted by Hound 6 years ago
Hound
The kind that pertains here is perception.

Can you prove God does or doesn't exist?

No?

Yeah, exactly. It's whether or not YOU believe it.
Posted by warpedfx 6 years ago
warpedfx
Dunno what the hell you're wibbling about here. 1+1=2 and you can't have square circles, and a=/= not a. That's logic. When your god is logically contradictory, it makes him non-existent. Logic is based on reasoning, and it transcends your "beliefs". If you believe in logically contradictory things, that just makes you a fuckwit, not profound.
Posted by Hound 6 years ago
Hound
Logic is perception.

I could say there's no logic of there being life, and there's nothing you could do about it.

I can also say that there IS logic in there being a God. Logic is based on beliefs and your way of thinking.

If there's no proof of it, it's scientifically not true. Belief in God is just that: belief. Can't disprove faith.
Posted by SoSilly 6 years ago
SoSilly
And there's reasoning and logic behind life in outer space, the chances are a bit greater. So I accept there could be life out there.
Posted by warpedfx 6 years ago
warpedfx
how bout trying to define god, and see where you go from there?

like, say an immaterial, timeless, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent mind that is god, as say William Lane Craig defines god as (as well as maximally great, but that's extraneous i'd say)

disproved on account of logic.
Posted by Hound 6 years ago
Hound
Obviously by intelligent life I mean in outer space.
Posted by Hound 6 years ago
Hound
All that was said here was "lol you can't prove it so it don't exist. GG BRO!!!"

That's not how it works.

For years we've been wondering about other intelligent life. We havenot proved nor disproved this. Therefore, it is foolish to assert that they don't exist. Peoples' faith in God lead them to believe in him.

Just because it hasn't been "officially" proven doesn't mean it's not possible.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by LukeSchreiner 6 years ago
LukeSchreiner
SoSillyOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Elmakai 6 years ago
Elmakai
SoSillyOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
SoSillyOre_EleTied
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 
Vote Placed by ethopia619 6 years ago
ethopia619
SoSillyOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by SocialContract 6 years ago
SocialContract
SoSillyOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
SoSillyOre_EleTied
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 
Vote Placed by cherokee15 6 years ago
cherokee15
SoSillyOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
SoSillyOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 6 years ago
sherlockmethod
SoSillyOre_EleTied
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 
Vote Placed by ZackJarvis 6 years ago
ZackJarvis
SoSillyOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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