The Instigator
pillow
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
Cherymenthol
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

God exists.

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: 11/22/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,186 times Debate No: 10157
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

pillow

Pro

Hi, this is my first time on this site and I am simply amazed at this community - how you guys can have such formal and polite debates on such serious issues; issues which in another time and place were the spark which caused the flame of entire wars. It really says something about how far we've come as a race.

In this debate, we are arguing whether or not God exists.

The basic premise is this:
==================
1. The only requirement for something to "exist" is for it to have an influence on humanity, both on the individual and collective levels
2. Because a great majority of people believe in God, God has a strong influence on humanity both for individuals (who believe in God) and for the collective (on the historic/political level)
3. Because #2 is true, and #1 is true, therefore God exists.

I'm sure there is much more I can elaborate, but I will leave that for a response to my (worthy) opponent's arguments, as I would like the first post to be as short and straightforward as possible.
Cherymenthol

Con

I thank my opponent for offering this debate and look forward to a fun one at that, also it is my first debate.

First i feel the need to define one term (Dictionary.com)

Influence: a person that exerts influence.
Through this definition alone we ought to vote CON in this round.

Looking at my opponents first premise, that in order to exist it has to have an influence on both the individual and collective level. However this is not true, and i am a clear example of this. I in my short years of living have yet to perform any actions that have truly impacted humanity on the collective level, while i have achieved influence on the individual level I have yet to influence society collectively. Because I exist and do not meet this entire criteria we must disregard it a replace it with something universally true, thus we look to the definition of "exist" on Dictinoary.com: to have life or animation; live. And because there is yet to be evidence supporting God's animation, or living, we ought to vote CON.

moving on to their second premise, The statement a great majority of the people instantly negates my opponents entire argument. They say that god must influence on both the individual and collective level, yet looking at the definition of collective (dictionary.com) forming a whole, we can see that God has not influenced Atheists, thereby making this aspect of the second premise false, and yet another reason to vote CON.

I agree with the statement that God, or the unrational belief thereof, has had an impact on individuals. However God has not influenced Society on Neither the Political nor Historical level. I will post my reason why here:

Political) The only way i can link my opponents statement to Political influence is to infer that he was talking about Conservatives, and other religious groups. However being that these religions are the ones effecting politics not God this argument collapses. And furthermore we can not assume that all motives of these religious sects are direct orders of God, because everyone has their own agenda as well.

Historical) When we go back in time we see that GOD has had no effect on history whatsoever. When we look at the first mention of God in a non-ficticious sense we think of the crusades. (I disregard the bible because it is ficticious) However these series of battles however much people may try to disguise it, had ulterior motives such as the gaining of land, and resources, furthermore the title of Holy Wars was just an excuse to execute the actions, not the reason for doing them. When we look at the pilgrimage to America we see that while RELIGION was an aspect of the journey, God did not direct these individuals to leave. When we look at Various estranged instances of murder, and attack committed by individual under the guise that God told them to, we can have know way of knowing if this is merely an excuse or not so we must disregard these occurances. Finally when we look at Terrorist attacks we must use the same logic as we use with the Holy Wars and with the supposed ritual murder occurances.

Finally i would like to note the abusive nature of this round my opponent sets it up with such wide parameters to make it extremely hard on me.

thank you and i look forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 1
pillow

Pro

"Finally i would like to note the abusive nature of this round my opponent sets it up with such wide parameters to make it extremely hard on me."

That's the point, isn't it? ;)

Thanks for your response. I will start by addressing your first issue, apparently your exaggerated humility:

"I in my short years of living have yet to perform any actions that have truly impacted humanity on the collective level"

In my definition, I did not specify the extent of influence something must have to exist; I specified a qualitative property about the object discussed, but you are arguing with me about a quantitative property.

True, you might not have too noticeable an influence on humanity, but you have some influence. Just by participating in this debate you are leaving a mark on history, however microscopic a mark that may be.

My original meaning of the definition of "existence" could be explained very simply with the well known question: If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? I understand the scientific arguments that would prove the answer to be "yes" for this question - however when we're discussing the existence of God, we must not look to scientific arguments but rather to philosophic arguments in order to have a fair debate - and in those existential terms, it would be very easy for me to argue that, really, the answer to the above question is "no." If no one knows that the tree exists, than it doesn't exist, because existence is a thing that is only important to specify in relation to human perception. This "human perception" can be replaced by "human influence," and thus we come back to our original definition, which is still perfectly valid.

"However God has not influenced Society on Neither the Political nor Historical level."

If you do a quick search on Google for statistics about people's belief in God, you will find that, as of today, the number of adults who believe in God range from 85 to 95 percent worldwide.
That is just about 6 billion people.
Many of those people believe that they are doing God's will.
Do you truly believe that the beliefs of 6 billion people have no influence on society?

The crusades are just a single example of many wars that were fought in the name of God. Sure, there were ulterior motives, but the fact is that if these people did not disagree on how to serve God there would have been no war. Gods existence is crucial to the undertaking of these wars. Of course, back then, this was an extremely obvious fact almost to the point that it was irrelevant.

In your argument about God's influence in politics you said: "However being that these religions are the ones effecting politics not God this argument collapses."

This statement does not make sense as it is self-contradicting. Religions are simply variations of what "God" is, but they all derive from the same single idea of God; therefore, your sentence: "However being that these different variations of God are the ones effecting politics not God this argument collapses." ...does not make sense.

Despite your arguments the original logic in my case still stands.

The basic premise is this:
==================
1. The only requirement for something to "exist" is for it to have an influence on humanity, both on the individual and collective levels
2. Because a great majority of people believe in God, God has a strong influence on humanity both for individuals (who believe in God) and for the collective (on the historic/political level)
3. Because #2 is true, and #1 is true, therefore God exists.

Therefore, we should all vote Pro, right?
Just kidding; waiting for your replies with bated breath :)
Cherymenthol

Con

Roadmap: Refute PRO, Extend CON, Prove how I win.

"In my definition, I did not specify the extent of influence something must have to exist; I specified a qualitative property about the object discussed, but you are arguing with me about a quantitative property. "

Influence is both a property with a qualitative and quantitative aspects, and true you merely decided to point out it must have influence you leave me the initiative to determine what is and what is not enough influence. But this is not as completely arbitrary as it may seem because remember in order to have a political effect it must be vocal, therefore I further assert that the amount of influence given out is more than God can create. And because even God's supposed influence does not match up the criteria I listed then clearly the lowing being that is I could never which once again contradicts the definition of existence. And so once again we may look to the CON's definition, and because my opponent has not showed how God is animated God does not exist therefore we vote CON.

"My original meaning of the definition of "existence" could be explained very simply with the well known question: If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? I understand the scientific arguments that would prove the answer to be "yes" for this question - however when we're discussing the existence of God, we must not look to scientific arguments but rather to philosophic arguments in order to have a fair debate - and in those existential terms, it would be very easy for me to argue that, really, the answer to the above question is "no." "

This statement is grossly unfair, you state that earlier the debate must be skewed in your direction when I pointed out the extreme abusive nature of your premise, yet it is fine for you to specify what kind of arguments may be made it skewed against me. The only time you may state what kind of arguments may be made, if ever, is at the beginning of a debate and seeing as you didn't scientific logic is permitted. Due to this fact you have blatantly stated that God does not exist, no matter any context you can interpret this statement you have conceded the round, which leads us to yet another clear indignation of why CON is the appropriate side to vote for in this round.

"Do you truly believe that the beliefs of 6 billion people have no influence on society?"

First off this number is wrong, second this is assuming two drastically incorrect things, A) Everyone who believes in a god believes in one God, this is incorrect because the biggest religion in the world believes in multiple Deities, and B) This is further assuming that every judgment individuals make is mirrored by their faith, be it strong or weak, to a deity. Therefor we can drop the slippery slope you engineered manipulating data.

"This statement does not make sense as it is self-contradicting. Religions are simply variations of what "God" is, but they all derive from the same single idea of God; therefore, your sentence: "However being that these different variations of God are the ones effecting politics not God this argument collapses." ...does not make sense."

The only support I could see to support this broad and incorrect statement would be the three abrahamic faiths and how they all believing in one central deity, otherwise religions vary drastically. In the instance I was suggesting I was compensating for a variety of religions, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, and in the context I use them I imply that they each have separate agendas they are trying to pursue under the guise of a or multiple gods. Also religion is not just a variation of what God is it is a variations of cultures and customs stemming from a common belief within a certain society, therefor this argument stands.

now extend all the original arguments

==========================================================

we may extend the following and assume that my opponent agree because there were no attacks:

Definitions

Influence: a person that exerts influence.
Through this definition alone we ought to vote CON in this round.

My attack on his second premise:

The statement a great majority of the people instantly negates my opponents entire argument. They say that god must influence on both the individual and collective level, yet looking at the definition of collective (dictionary.com) forming a whole, we can see that God has not influenced Atheists, thereby making this aspect of the second premise false, and yet another reason to vote CON.

==========================================================

The CON ought to win this round because it solidly proved through definitions, refutation, logic, overall concessions made by the PRO, that God does not exist.

Finally i would like to leave a few remarks to my opponent,

To the abusive nature of this debate, it is not supposed to be unfair.

Therefore, we should all vote Pro, right?
Just kidding; waiting for your replies with bated breath :)

be a little more careful if i didn't know you were trying to be humorous i would assume you just forfeited the round by saying just kidding, we shouldn't vote for me.

And finally i apologize for my rudeness in this round and ask for your forgiveness.
Debate Round No. 2
pillow

Pro

"Influence is both a property with a qualitative and quantitative aspects, and true you merely decided to point out it must have influence you leave me the initiative to determine what is and what is not enough influence."

It seems you are saying that after reaching a certain threshold of influence, an object suddenly comes into existence. I'm happy we can at least come to an agreement about the basic assumption that an object's existence depends on its influence, however again it makes little sense to set this quantitative threshold and I'll tell you precisely why: By doing so, what you are implying is that existence itself is a quantitative property – i.e. the more influence something has, the more it exists. This contradicts the very nature of existence; something either exists or doesn't, there is no in-between state.

Therefore my first premise is yet to be proven incorrect.

"But this is not as completely arbitrary as it may seem because remember in order to have a political effect it must be vocal, therefore I further assert that the amount of influence given out is more than God can create."

I am not sure what you mean by this.

"…because my opponent has not showed how God is animated God does not exist therefore we vote CON."

As I have shown above, my definition has not yet been proven incorrect. According to my definition of existence, I do not need to prove this.

"This statement is grossly unfair, you state that earlier the debate must be skewed in your direction when I pointed out the extreme abusive nature of your premise, yet it is fine for you to specify what kind of arguments may be made it skewed against me. The only time you may state what kind of arguments may be made, if ever, is at the beginning of a debate…"

Is it not allowed to pose new arguments outside of the first post? That is all I was doing – I was presenting a new argument which was intended to undermine the "scientific" approach to disproving my case, as we are arguing about something which under no circumstances can be proven by scientific means. If my argument was a fair one, with fair points, it should not matter where in the debate it was posted. It seems that you are simply trying to catch on to an insignificant technicality, while ignoring the meat of my arguments.

"First off this number is wrong,"

It is an approximation. I do not have time to spend an hour researching the exact statistics, however with a simply Google search I found two sources which say the percentages are as I've said above. You can be sure that it's not too far off the mark – atheists might make up a large percentage of the internet population, but in the real world they make a pretty small minority.

"A) Everyone who believes in a god believes in one God, this is incorrect because the biggest religion in the world believes in multiple Deities,"

It is irrelevant as long as they believe that there is at least some higher being. Allah, God, Jesus, Buddha, the numerous Hindu gods… they all have their technical differences. However you must understand that beyond those technicalities all these people share the same basic belief in a higher power.

"B) This is further assuming that every judgment individuals make is mirrored by their faith, be it strong or weak, to a deity. Therefore we can drop the slippery slope you engineered manipulating data."

I was not assuming that, and I do not think that is relevant either for my original point – that the overwhelming belief of so many people undoubtedly has an effect on society. I do not know what "manipulating" of data you are referring to, and I sure as heck did not engineer any "slippery slope." I'm not sure you know what that is, in the context of your statement.

"…religions vary drastically"

Refer to my above statement. Under the terms of this debate, the technical variations of different religions do not have any effect as long as these religions have a basic belief in some higher being.

"…religion is not just a variation of what God is it is a variations of cultures and customs stemming from a common belief within a certain society, therefore this argument stands."

The key word here is "just." You are right, it is not "just" a variation of what God is. But it still is in part. And again, for the terms of this debate the "variations of cultures and customs" are irrelevant.
My original argument still stands iron strong and untouched by these technical issues.

"we may extend the following and assume that my opponent agree because there were no attacks:"

I do not attack because all I must do is defend the terms of the argument in order to win.

"Influence: a person that exerts influence.
Through this definition alone we ought to vote CON in this round."

I have already disproven this assertion in round #2.

"The statement a great majority of the people instantly negates my opponents entire argument. They say that god must influence on both the individual and collective level, yet looking at the definition of collective (dictionary.com) forming a whole, we can see that God has not influenced Atheists, thereby making this aspect of the second premise false, and yet another reason to vote CON."

God has not influenced Atheists in the same sense that he has influenced religion people, true. However, has, for instance, President Obama "influenced" you? Has he invited you to dinner? Have you discussed politics? I will assume the answer to these questions to be "no." But he has still had some influence on you, albeit indirectly.
Indirectly or directly, the existence of God has an influence on the lives of everyone. The question, again, is to what extent he has influence. I have already proven that this is irrelevant.

===========================================================================
In my opponents previous post, he has made many technical remarks which were intended to display flaws in my argument, however if I have successfully refuted all of these remarks and my basic propositional logic from round #1 remains untouched, than PRO should win this round under the terms of the debate.

The basic premise is this:
==================
1. The only requirement for something to "exist" is for it to have an influence on humanity, both on the individual and collective levels
2. Because a great majority of people believe in God, God has a strong influence on humanity both for individuals (who believe in God) and for the collective (on the historic/political level)
3. Because #2 is true, and #1 is true, therefore God exists.
Cherymenthol

Con

By doing so, what you are implying is that existence itself is a quantitative property – i.e. the more influence something has, the more it exists. This contradicts the very nature of existence; something either exists or doesn't, there is no in-between state.

You have misinterpreted what i said, i was trying to point out that not this is too broad a curricula and even if it were true quantitive factors would count in. But further proof to why your first premise does not stand i offer the "Unicorn". Unicorns have influenced stories, and myth for ages yet we can both be certain that i will not find a Unicorn prancing in the woods. Furthermore what about a Dragon, or Centaur, or even a Minotaur. All have influence yet none in existence. Thereby proving why influence does not mean existence.

Therefore we can look to the CON's definition and vote CON in the round because there has yet to be given evidence of Gods' living and animation.

Is it not allowed to pose new arguments outside of the first post? That is all I was doing – I was presenting a new argument which was intended to undermine the "scientific" approach to disproving my case, as we are arguing about something which under no circumstances can be proven by scientific means. If my argument was a fair one, with fair points, it should not matter where in the debate it was posted. It seems that you are simply trying to catch on to an insignificant technicality, while ignoring the meat of my arguments.

First off i do Lincoln Douglas debate so i am stuck in that mind frame. Also contradictory to me Ignoring the meat of your arguments i turned your statement to further prove how scientific reasoning, which ought not be bared, in this round once again disproves God. to quote myself, quoting you, If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? I understand the scientific arguments that would prove the answer to be "yes" for this question - however when we're discussing the existence of God, we must not look to scientific arguments but rather to philosophic arguments in order to have a 'fair debate' (NOTE; The entire slant of the round is abusive and unfair) Therefore we may once again vote CON because my opponent has negated himself.

It is an approximation. I do not have time to spend an hour researching the exact statistics, however with a simply Google search I found two sources which say the percentages are as I've said above. You can be sure that it's not too far off the mark – atheists might make up a large percentage of the internet population, but in the real world they make a pretty small minority.

I will negate in turn:
1. you set up this debate therefor proving you have time for frivolous activities, also you gave 72 hours in between posts further proving you did have an hour to research."
2. you didn't list the sources, how can i know they are legitimate. On this not i can not be sure that they are not to far off the mark without sources.
3. This Atheist point has no warrants either.

It is irrelevant as long as they believe that there is at least some higher being. Allah, God, Jesus, Buddha, the numerous Hindu gods… they all have their technical differences. However you must understand that beyond those technicalities all these people share the same basic belief in a higher power.

This is where you are mistaken, you initially set up the debate saying "God Exists"
not gods nor higher powers therefor we must debate in the singular and these examples still support my arguments. Also technicalities is a short way of putting it, if things were just technically different they would be the same otherwise and seeing as their not your entire series of logic falls.

I was not assuming that, and I do not think that is relevant either for my original point – that the overwhelming belief of so many people undoubtedly has an effect on society. I do not know what "manipulating" of data you are referring to, and I sure as heck did not engineer any "slippery slope." I'm not sure you know what that is, in the context of your statement.

It is entirely relevant in order to support you statement of 6 billion people's beliefs matter and still support you, they must be made under the influence of God, and seeing as you did not prove they were my argument still stands. Furthermore the manipulation of data, i.e. assuming these 6 billion people all made choices due to their faith engineered your slipper slop. (Its a Lincoln Douglas term)

The key word here is "just." You are right, it is not "just" a variation of what God is. But it still is in part. And again, for the terms of this debate the "variations of cultures and customs" are irrelevant.

Religion is different Gods as i pointed out and my opponent disregarded, therefore once again we can see that not every religion compensates fro this singular god and thus religion in general does not support his position, so my turn stands. Variations in cultures and customs differ religions, as well as number of gods making there importance know helps prove furthermore why God does not exist proving futher of their import.

I do not attack this definition because all I must do is defend the terms of the argument in order to win.
i disproved yet again your arguments meaning you must and because you did not it stands so we ought to vote CON.

God has not influenced Atheists in the same sense that he has influenced religion people, true. However, has, for instance, President Obama "influenced" you? Has he invited you to dinner? Have you discussed politics? I will assume the answer to these questions to be "no." But he has still had some influence on you, albeit indirectly.

This entire attack has no logic he merely states God influences aethists then relates it to Obama, therefore we may drop it and extend my position on how his God doesn't influence collectively.

====================================================

The key reason why we ought to be voting CON is due to the monumental concessions made during round 2.

My opponent said: My original meaning of the definition of "existence" could be explained very simply with the well known question: If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? I understand the scientific arguments that would prove the answer to be "yes" for this question - however when we're discussing the existence of God, we must not look to scientific arguments but rather to philosophic arguments in order to have a fair debate - and in those existential terms, it would be very easy for me to argue that, really, the answer to the above question is "no." If no one knows that the tree exists, than it doesn't exist, because existence is a thing that is only important to specify in relation to human perception. This "human perception" can be replaced by "human influence," and thus we come back to our original definition, which is still perfectly valid.

No this supports my side to ways;

A) the statement if their is no knowledge of the tree it has no effect/ influence, well turn and i say if an individual has no knowledge of God they can not be influenced, meaning the collective criteria is not met thereby proving God's inexistence.

B) My opponent conceded that their is evidence to support my argument that God does not Exist, thereby further proving God's Inexistent.

This paragraph will be the only voter in this round.
Debate Round No. 3
pillow

Pro

pillow forfeited this round.
Cherymenthol

Con

My opponent has forfeited... I urge a con ballot, because my refutations and arguments stand.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
"In fact, you could even prove that different beings exist to different extents, that way God "exists" even more than you do."

Well, I'm not sure how I'd go about proving God exists more than I do; I was unaware that existence could be compared in that way. How can one extant thing be more in existence than any other extant thing?

But you see my point. I did not decline this debate because I disagreed with you; rather if all it takes to exist is to have influenced humanity, then all sorts of things can be rightly said to "exist." To that extent, then, you are right.

Granted, it's not the sort of existence we mean when we use the word normally; nor can you argue that because God exists in this sense, He must exist in the other. But for the purposes of this debate, if your first premise is accepted, your opponent has no opportunity to win.

That's what I meant in the PM when you first asked me; I said it would turn into a four round argument about a definition.
Posted by pillow 7 years ago
pillow
>>then all major conceptual beings can be shown to "exist."

Yes, this is true. In fact, you could even prove that different beings exist to different extents, that way God "exists" even more than you do... guess you're probably not gonna accept that, though :(
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
Hmmm... I guess it doesn't automatically open it up to the general public when the challenge is declined... I was wrong.
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
@ Nags: I have, but not in this context...

@ Pillow: You can always edit your debate, up to the point where someone accepts it. If you want to debate another facet of this topic, or just about any other, I'd be willing to consider it.

I'm declining this debate, though. It'll be open to anyone interested to debate it with you.

Welcome to Debate.org!
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Premise one != true.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
Lol. I've never heard that definition of exist before.
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
Chuckle... we're not always very polite...

Problem is, if "The only requirement for something to "exist" is for it to have an influence on humanity," then all major conceptual beings can be shown to "exist."

I'd lose automatically if I accepted this...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
pillowCherymentholTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
pillowCherymentholTied
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 Cherymenthol 7 years ago
Cherymenthol
pillowCherymentholTied
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:07