The Instigator
RebelRebelDixieDixie01
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
A341
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

God is possible

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 949 times Debate No: 46417
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)

 

RebelRebelDixieDixie01

Pro

My argument is that anything is possible, especially when you consider an almighty being who can do things humans can't concept.

I await my opponents arguments.
A341

Con

Before I start I fully accept the burden of proof is on me in this debate.

Here is the definition of 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."

Both omniscience and omnipotence are logically impossible (and in themselves contradictory).

Now no matter what omniscience is impossible, nothing can know everything because every sentient being has to make the three basil assumptions:

The assumption that we experience the universe through our senses,
The assumption that knowledge exists,
The assumption that models with predictive capability are more effective than models with only descriptive capability.

Because these assumptions must be made by every sentient being it is impossible for any being to be omniscient. Therefore because there is a logical impossibility in the definition.

And now for omnipotence. Omnipotence can be shown to be impossible by a very simple question and that is can god create an object that god can't effect? If god cannot create this object then god isn't omnipotent and if god can create this object then god is also not omnipotent because god cannot effect an object.

Now (luckily for me) you constricting this to the Jewish god constricts this debate to this reality in which two statements of fact cannot contradict each other for instance a square cannot also be a circle or a being cannot be all forgiving and order the deaths of thousands.

Now Yahweh is claimed to be both all forgiving [1] and orders the deaths of hundreds of thousands [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Yahweh is also claimed to be all righteous [8] and orders the killing of unbelievers [9].

I look forward to your counter arguments.

[1] Isaiah 30:18
[2] Judges 21:10-24
[3] Numbers 31:7-18
[4] Deuteronomy 20:10-14
[5] Zechariah 14:1-2
[6] Deuteronomy 13:13-19
[7] Exodus 12:29-30
[8] Job 37:23
[9] 2 Chronicles 15:12-13
Debate Round No. 1
RebelRebelDixieDixie01

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

First, I would like to say, what is possible? I believe according to quantum physics, anything is.

I would also like to point out that when I say God, I mean any God, of any religion or faith.

God is possible, because to many faiths, anything is, at first we thought building a flying machine wouldn't be possible for thousands of years, then, two brothers built it.

That is why I believe anything is possible, maybe not now, but in time.

So to say something is impossible, to me is (not saying that you are) idiotic.

Now, I understand your view about forgiveness, the only way to get God's forgiveness and repent to him.

Without those properties, God will not forgive.

I await my opponents reply
A341

Con

Your second argument is based on the self contradictory idea of "nothing is impossible" the idea that it is impossible for something to be impossible is it's self impossible. "nothing is impossible" doesn't work if you change it to "it is impossible for something to be impossible" then you see the inherently self contradictory nature of that statement.

"First, I would like to say, what is possible? I believe according to quantum physics, anything is."

No, quantum physics is simply a model of reality relating to atomic and sub atomic particles, in quantum physics there are rules (for instance the conservation of matter and energy) and so even in quantum physics the total amount of matter and energy in the universe cannot increase or decrease if you like in quantum physics it is impossible for the total amount of matter and energy in the universe to change. Here is more on quantum physics if you want to know what it says (the very very basics) http://www-keeler.ch.cam.ac.uk...

I will re state my argument with more explanation.

"I think, therefore I am" was invented by Ren" Descartes to counter hard solipsism it is a fact and is objectively true that I know that I am having an experience no matter what the nature of experience is it is impossible for me (or from your point of view you) to not exist in some form.

"I think, therefore I am" is the only thing we can objectively know to go any further you must make three assumptions (the basil assumptions):
The assumption that we experience the universe through our senses,
The assumption that knowledge exists,
The assumption that models with predictive capability are more effective than models with only descriptive capability.

Any sentient being cannot know that any of these assumptions are true (even a god) and therefore there is an impossibility in the definition of a 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.") and as a being cannot achieve omniscience it cannot fulfill all the characteristics necessary to be considered a god.

Further more there is a contradiction in omnipotence which is very easy to highlight. Can god create an object god cannot object effect? If god cannot create the object then god isn't omnipotent and if god can then god has something god cannot do either way omnipotence is impossible.

I have shown you that there are two impossibilities in the definition of god and therefore god cannot be either omnipotent or omniscient. And as any being cannot be omnipotent or omniscient god by definition doesn't exist and it is impossible for god to exist.

I'm going to finish of by addressing your last sentences.

"Now, I understand your view about forgiveness, the only way to get God's forgiveness and repent to him.

Without those properties, God will not forgive."

This is totally unsubstantiated by any evidence and is entirely baseless claims.

I look forward to your arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
RebelRebelDixieDixie01

Pro

I would like to apologize for saying The Jewish God in the comments, I thought he was talking about the God I believe in.

The fact is that God is possible, let me rephrase, "nothing is impossible" to everything is possible.

How could a God be impossible?

Here's my question, if God is impossible, then how did the universe come into existence?

The Big Bang? No, of course not because that theory cannot be proved.

Lets take the Hindu Gods for example, the Hindus have thousands of Gods, what are the odds that at least on of them exists?

If there is an almighty God, with powers we can't understand, then why would he be impossible?

Atheists prove the bible correct, the bible says there will ALWAYS be atheists, so I thank all atheists reading this, because you are supporting Christianity!
A341

Con

"The fact is that God is possible, let me rephrase, "nothing is impossible" to everything is possible."

This has the same logical contradictions.

"How could a God be impossible?"

It would be good if you answered my last arguments but I will restate them for a third time

""I think, therefore I am" was invented by Ren" Descartes to counter hard solipsism it is a fact and is objectively true that I know that I am having an experience no matter what the nature of experience is it is impossible for me (or from your point of view you) to not exist in some form.

"I think, therefore I am" is the only thing we can objectively know to go any further you must make three assumptions (the basil assumptions):
The assumption that we experience the universe through our senses,
The assumption that knowledge exists,
The assumption that models with predictive capability are more effective than models with only descriptive capability.

Any sentient being cannot know that any of these assumptions are true (even a god) and therefore there is an impossibility in the definition of a 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.") and as a being cannot achieve omniscience it cannot fulfill all the characteristics necessary to be considered a god.

Further more there is a contradiction in omnipotence which is very easy to highlight. Can god create an object god cannot object effect? If god cannot create the object then god isn't omnipotent and if god can then god has something god cannot do either way omnipotence is impossible.

I have shown you that there are two impossibilities in the definition of god and therefore god cannot be either omnipotent or omniscient. And as any being cannot be omnipotent or omniscient god by definition doesn't exist and it is impossible for god to exist."

Please respond to this argument.

"Here's my question, if God is impossible, then how did the universe come into existence?

The Big Bang? No, of course not because that theory cannot be proved."

Lets see the evidence and please in future when you argue please cite your sources. When objects are moving away from the observer the light which reaches the observer will be see light shifted to the lower end of the spectrum (and vice versa) [1]. When we look into space we see that all the galaxies are moving away from each other and we extrapolate back and find that 13.8 billion years ago all the galaxies must have been on top of each other. We can confirm this hypothesis by viewing cosmic background radiation [2].

Also lets say that we could prove the "big bang" never happened, placing a god in that hole in science is nothing more than an argument from ignorance.

"Lets take the Hindu Gods for example, the Hindus have thousands of Gods, what are the odds that at least on of them exists?"

Well all the hindu gods are intertwined so it's better to think of mythologies instead of individual gods. If christianity is right then five billion people are wrong, if hinduism is right six billion people are wrong, if islam is correct six billion people are wrong and if there is no god seven billion people are wrong.

Lets look at hinduism, first we can see the changes in the religion from neo-animism to modern hinduism, we can see the incorporation of different gods from other cultures into hinduism [3]. Really hinduism is set up very similar to roman state religion. There are hundreds of thousands possibly millions of gods which have been created by humans but this in no way evidences a god any more than the many legends of giants [4] evidence the existence of giants.

Man created god in his own image, bigoted, homophobic, misogynistic, capricious and racist.

"If there is an almighty God, with powers we can't understand, then why would he be impossible?"

Because the definition of a god is by definition impossible neither omniscience or omnipotence are logically incoherent something which I think I have already proved.

"Atheists prove the bible correct, the bible says there will ALWAYS be atheists, so I thank all atheists reading this, because you are supporting Christianity!"

This doesn't matter, if I write a book about the flying spaghetti monster with no supporting evidence and include a verse about people not believing in the flying spaghetti monster then does that prove the flying spaghetti monster? Also that is a very strange interpretation of the bible.

So in conclusion god is impossible because omnipotence and omniscience are impossible no matter what the true nature of reality, you have not provided any rebuttal to my argument or even logical basis for god, all you have managed to do is make a couple of appeals to incredulity.

[1] http://www.mso.anu.edu.au...
[2] http://muller.lbl.gov...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...(Vedic)
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WaterTipper 2 years ago
WaterTipper
"Explain how I am racist, idiot."
Your previous comments in various debates provide more than enough evidence, I would say.

"Also, I'm not conservative"
Again, your comments say otherwise.
Posted by RebelRebelDixieDixie01 2 years ago
RebelRebelDixieDixie01
Also, I'm not conservative
Posted by RebelRebelDixieDixie01 2 years ago
RebelRebelDixieDixie01
Explain how I am racist, idiot.
Posted by WaterTipper 2 years ago
WaterTipper
Oh man, Pro's getting wrecked and wrecked each round. :D
So much for the racist, xenophobic, right-wing, conservative, creationist, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-education, anti-science, confederate, and overall just uneducated bigot of a fundamentalist that is RebelDixie.
Posted by RebelRebelDixieDixie01 2 years ago
RebelRebelDixieDixie01
So what do you want to debate about?
Posted by RebelRebelDixieDixie01 2 years ago
RebelRebelDixieDixie01
I can't, you aren't accepting either
Posted by ChrisF 2 years ago
ChrisF
Since you aren't allowing messages or posts on your profile Rebel, I had to post this here. I want to debate you about something, not quite sure what yet. Mail me.
Posted by A341 2 years ago
A341
That's fine just include that in your argument.
Posted by RebelRebelDixieDixie01 2 years ago
RebelRebelDixieDixie01
I would like to apologize, the Jewish God is not what I am debating about, you can take that off of my conduct.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
WHOO!

Go con!
No votes have been placed for this debate.