The Instigator
QandA
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

God is not great and most likely doesn't exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,091 times Debate No: 36214
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

QandA

Pro

Religion is a basis for unfairness, immorality and is led by an unjust, unfair superstitious figure who is supposedly divine and all-knowing but yet cannot boast for a single shred of evidence to back up this claim
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

If God doesn't exist, then there would be nobody to either be great or not great. The resolution is false necessarily. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
QandA

Pro

Greatness and lack of greatness comes from a persons personality and particular mindset, which is related to neuroscience, not religion. And if god is real then why did he make certain people great and certain people not great? Surely that is truly unfair to handpick people to be good and just toss the rest aside
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

"Greatness and lack of greatness comes from a persons personality and particular mindset, which is related to neuroscience, not religion."

I agree 100%. However, the problem for you is that in order for you to establish that God is not great, you would have to show that there is a God who is not great. "God" cannot be great, if there is no "God" to not be great! That would be like me saying "the beer I drank today was not great", when there was no beer that I drank today. The truth of my statement would be literally impossible logically. However, the other part of the resolution completely contradicts the first part, as you are also trying to show that God most likely does not exist. Your resolution is basically split into two parts:

(i) God is not great

(ii) God most likely does not exist

However, as I showed, what Pro is inadvertently saying is:

(i) God exists, and is not great

(ii) God most likely does not exist

The "and is not great" is trivial to the contradiction I am proving that Pro is putting forward, so what Pro is essentially saying, even if he does not realize it, is:

(i) God exists

(ii) God most likely does not exist

However, if (i) is true, then it follows that (ii) is false. If (ii) is true, then (i) could still be true (even if it is most likely that God does not exist, God could still exist as it is not for certain). The issue is that Pro actually has to meet his burden on (i) and (ii)! However, this means his arguments are doomed to fail. If he argues for (i), then that lessons the likelihood of (ii) being true, if he argues for (ii), then it lesson's the likelihood of (i) being true. If he argues for both (i) and (ii), then his arguments are going to be contradictory. It would be illogical to accept both of his arguments for (i) and (ii) because if they both succeed, then it leads to the contradiction below:

Pro has succeeded at showing that God most likely exists or exists, and that God most likely doesn't exist.

However, that would be like someone showing that a perfectly spherical cube can plop in my hand right now. The argument fails by requirement logically, as we already know the conclusion has to be false.

"And if god is real then why did he make certain people great and certain people not great?"

I don't think God is real, I think the resolution is contradictory and false by necessity.

"Surely that is truly unfair to handpick people to be good and just toss the rest aside"

Agreed.
Debate Round No. 2
QandA

Pro

I apologize for my lack of logical sense see now that I was not clear with what I was trying to say. I meant that the idea of a god existing and who is great doesn't sit well with me, I see the contradiction now. There is no point debating any further as we clearly share the same views but it's been a pleasure
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

"There is no point debating any further as we clearly share the same views but it's been a pleasure."

Likewise.
Debate Round No. 3
QandA

Pro

Debate is annulled.
Debate Round No. 4
QandA

Pro

QandA forfeited this round.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

My opponent forfeited.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Poetaster 3 years ago
Poetaster
Relevant for the curious:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by Wocambs 3 years ago
Wocambs
That's a ridiculous argument, RT.

I think, therefore my thoughts are imaginary, therefore my thoughts don't exist, therefore I do not think, therefore I do not experience I and therefore my ego does not exist. The Rational_Cogito.
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
1. If something does not have any attributes, then it does not have the attribute of being great, and therefore is not great.

2. If something does not have any attributes, then it cannot have the attribute of being God, and therefore if God does not exist then God is not God, using RationalThinker's logic. Therefore, if it is true that something non-existent has no attributes, then God must exist, otherwise God is not God.

3. If something has no attributes, it cannot be imaginary. Meaning that if Rational-Thinker's rationale is correct, then nothing is imaginary, and so any discussion about the attributes of imaginary things (including the claim that they don't have any) is automatically meaningless, for there are no imaginary things to have or lack attributes.
Posted by PabloM 3 years ago
PabloM
It seems like you're being pedantic so as to stay "in character" as Con. That's unnecessary, as the debate's over.

Imaginary things have no attributes? By that logic, the very name "Gandalf" is meaningless, and any mention of it will be greeted with blank, bemused, stares.
There would also be no long, drawn out, in-depth discussions among scifi fans and comic book nerds. And most of the movies, books and TV shows out there would be incomprehensible.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Imaginary = non-existent. Meaning their are no attributes to have!
Posted by PabloM 3 years ago
PabloM
Fictional characters can still have attributes. They're just imaginary rather than physically real.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Something non-existent cannot have a long beard. That is incoherent. If Gandolf does not exist, then the statement that he has a long beard makes no sense at all.
Posted by Wocambs 3 years ago
Wocambs
"Gandalf has a long beard" - Does that necessitate the existence of Gandalf as anything other than a fictional character?

Consider: 'Whatever is Gandalf has the property of having a long beard'. Well, Gandalf is a fictional character, and so it is correct that he has a long beard, provided we don't quibble over beard length.

'Whatever is God is not great, and most likely does not exist'. So, what is God? According to QandA, he is: "an unjust, unfair superstitious figure", and I am quite sure that 'superstitious' in this sense is meant to convey that God is the 'product of superstition'.
Posted by QandA 3 years ago
QandA
Yes you are absolutely right I should have
Posted by PabloM 3 years ago
PabloM
Couldn't Pro have pointed out that the "God" in the statement is a hypothetical?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Orangatang 3 years ago
Orangatang
QandARational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Did, not even notice the inherent contradiction in the phrasing of Pro's resolution. I understood it in the more colloquial sense. Comes to show that on DDO you must be very careful with you resolutions as you are bound by them.