The Instigator
Stephen_Hawkins
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
XiaoFei98
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

God is real

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
Con Tied Pro
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/18/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 891 times Debate No: 18857
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Alright, I'd like to do this debate with someone. I'll try and be concise, and answer any other questions in the comments section. The debate says 5 rounds long, but in reality it is 4. This is for a) extra round if needed and b) so that the pro can make his argument first. The burden of proof is entirely on the affirmer.

God - The Judeo Christian God with the qualities of: omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, transcendent, immanent, personal, anthropomorphic, etc.

is - verb, from "to be". God is real. He is smart. Micheal is a mafia member.

Real - NOT AS IN A CONCEPT. As in the common usage of the word. Real as in able to effect the world in some format. Not as in the currency either.

Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed: "Julius Caesar was a real person". <-- That definition.

I hope that clears everything up.
XiaoFei98

Pro

I accept the challenge. You post your argument first.
Debate Round No. 1
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

I'm sorry, the text very specifically said that the rounds were longer "so that the pro can make his argument first". Also, it clearly says "The burden of proof is entirely on the affirmer".
XiaoFei98

Pro

Alright. Sorry, I misread the text.

God is real. There should be no question. Those who deny God are denying everything around them. Think of the yourself, the people around you, animals, plants, and the universe. Do you truly believe that was all by chance? God has to be real because he created the whole universe. In order for me to debate with you fully, you will have to tell me your point of view of how this world began. Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory, evolution, etc?

Thank you for this challenge.
Debate Round No. 2
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

(Brilliant, half an hour left and my cache cleared)

The idea that God is real because the world around us very artistic, agreed. Unfortunately, it means absolutely nothing. The idea that it could come from chance is quite reasonable. Let's use the simple probability equation:

Probability = Number of favourable outcomes
__________________________
Number of possible outcomes.

If we look at the chance of being in this universe, we can say the chance is 1. If we look at number of possible outcomes, we have no way of knowing whether there are other universes or not. Therefore, we can call it y.

http://www.s-cool.co.uk...

We can see how the chance using this graph. Now, what do we see from this? If this is the only universe, then the chance of being in this universe is 1, and if there were many universes, it would be increased. In fact, if there were many universes, the chance of living in this universe would be LESS!

But I think we need to change the equation slightly. We do not know how many universes there are that we could live in. So we need to change the graph to y/x, not 1/x. This means we can logically claim ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the chance of the universe!

But ignoring this, the argument is inductive (looks at a specific scenario and generalises it). Let me give you another example of an inductive argument:

bob is mortal. (P1)
Parrots are mortals (P2)
Therefore, bob is a parrot (C1)
I think we both see how it means it COULD be true. It doesn't mean it is. We are not discussing, unfortunately, that god COULD be real. We are discussing whether he IS real.

Also, whether I believe in evolution, big bang, etc. is completely irrelevant, and a red herring. I will not answer, simply because it stops the argument deteriorating to being "Because it is not X, it is Y".

I'd go on about my own arguments, but I am going to speak quickly as my time is so limitted.

Interestingly, this model of how a disagreement can be resolved by successful argument rarely if ever actually describes the sort of process any of us, theists and atheists included, undergo to arrive at our beliefs. People rarely just change their minds after a sober and objective period of reflection on the evidence. The way we acquire our beliefs and our behavior with regard to defending them or sustaining them is much more complicated, neurological, and organic. What does happen is that your belief structure seems to make gradual shifts and each shift in attitude about one matter, especially if it is important, ripples outward and has an effect on lots of other beliefs, dispositions, and emotional reactions. To make matters more complicated, we aren't very good judges of what we believe, or why we believe it. Priming studies, in psychology, for example, show that neurological processes are set in motion towards a reaction long before we are consciously aware that we have seen or heard something consciously.

Nevertheless, we can aspire to the ideal standard of listening to arguments for opposing viewpoints about God and other matters with an open mind, considering them thoughtfully, and then objectively assessing the truth of that evidence, and then being prepared to accept the rational implications of that evidence. We should accept those conclusions that are best supported by the evidence, even if we typically don't.

So what's the rational thing to do when you hear a successful argument? The answer is simple: accept the conclusion. Put more formally as we would in a critical thinking class, if a reasonable person who does not already believe p:
understands and believes that all of the premises in the argument for p are true.
understands and believes that the premises when taken jointly imply p
then, that person is rationally committed to believing p.

So, if my opponent cannot fulfill this basic requirement to be giving a strong argument, then there is no reason to be rationally committed to something; in fact, it makes it irrational to believe something. In the rebuttal stage, I hope my opponent will refer to this, and accept that if something is irrational, then it does not have any fundamental truth.
XiaoFei98

Pro

Just as a note I really didn't get your mathematical equation, but I got some of it. Yes, there are a lot of possibilities of how the world formed. There's also a lot of possibilities of when I was born, but there is only ONE right answer. Also, with your Bob/parrot thing, I'm not going to pay attention to that because it is totally off topic.

Now that I've touched on that I shall continue with the rest of the debate.

You have pretty much said NOTHING to disprove God. All you said was there are possible ways that the universe has formed. Yes, that could disprove God's existence, but I don't really have anywhere to start given that you gave me a math problem and didn't back up anything. Also, you said that if I "cannot fulfill this basic requirement to be giving a strong argument, then there is no reason to be rationally committed to something; in fact, it makes it irrational to believe something." I find this wrong. I can argue my butt off without knowing your person point of view and beliefs. I'm saying that if I knew your beliefs, it would a) make my argument stronger and b) know what type of person you are. I have many reasons to believe what I believe.

I will just say that for now and give Con time to give an argument so that I can say more than this.
Debate Round No. 3
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Stephen_Hawkins forfeited this round.
XiaoFei98

Pro

My points still stand. I will not say anymore until you reply.
Debate Round No. 4
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

"Just as a note, I didn't really get your maths equation"

Well, let me elaborate on it:

The chance of flipping a coin that is unbias landing on heads (on a traditional coin, that is) is 50/50. both numbers are constant. rolling a dice has a 16/16/16/16/16/16 chance, roughly. If we wanted a heads in the primary equation, it would be 50% chance of favourable over unfavourable outcome. That is, 0.5 chance of being unfavourable outcome over 1. with the dice, say we wanted a chance for a six, it would be 1/6. or an even number, 1/2.

With the universe, we know neither the favourable outcome number (other than it is a real positive number, or Q+) and the number of possible outcomes (other than it is a real possible outcomes, or Q+).

"You've pretty much said NOTHING to disprove God"
Well, I put forth this argument, and I refuted the argument from imaginative creation you put forth. I can put it forth in a syllogism:

(P1) The Universe is amazing and pretty etc.
(C1) Therefore God exists.

This is blatantly false, and inductive being the first of its problems (which is where my example of bob the maybe-a-parrot comes in) and other pieces of information.

Also, I expect people to wonder why I did not put forth any other arguments, or refute any more "famous" ones. This is because of what I will paraphrase: "The burden of proof is entirely on the affirmer". There is nothing for me to refute, except the single argument my opponent put forth, which is false.

Thank you to my opponent and those who have read this, and vote fairly.
XiaoFei98

Pro

Sorry this took so long.
I'm not going to argue that there are a lot of possibilities about how the world has formed, but there is only one way. God is that answer. Where did you come up with Bob's a parrot idea? I now get your math, but Bob's a parrot doesn't having anything to do with this. You said because both are mortal then they are each other. I'm saying that someone had to have created the universe and I believe that's God. It is illogical to think that the complexity of our society and of things could come by chance. Thus, God has to be the Creator. Someone does. I am going to say that someone did create the universe before humans were created hinting that there is a God somewhere out there. It's the only logical explanation. All the other theories are completely humorous in my eyes. There has to be someone who created the things that are out there today and he is God.

God IS REAL. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by distraff 3 months ago
distraff
According to the theory of evolution we have seen complexity evolve so complexity does not prove design. We have even seen complex things evolve like bacteria evolving the ability to digest nylon. We also have strong fossil evidence for evolution like transitionals between humans and apes e.g. homo erectus.

Just because there might be other universes does not means that complexity doesn't mean design though.
Posted by Renascor 5 years ago
Renascor
So then you intended to provide a fallacious argument? Right. Right. That makes perfect sense.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Of course it is fallacious, that is the point. If it a policy, or if it concluded Therefore, bob could be a parrot, then the argument would work.
Posted by CarlosMarti123 5 years ago
CarlosMarti123
"bob is mortal. (P1)
Parrots are mortals (P2)
Therefore, bob is a parrot (C1)"

My goodness Con, that was the worst attempt to produce an example of an inductive argument I have seen in my life. This argument is NOT inductive, it is FALLACIOUS. Specifically, it commits the fallacy of an undistributed middle term (http://www.fallacyfiles.org...). Saying that if all A's are C's, and all B's are C's, then all A's are B's is NOT an inductive argument, it is a FALLACIOUS argument.

Not a good example of what an inductive argument is supposed to be at all.
Posted by shift4101 5 years ago
shift4101
This debate is a failure. Stephen_Hawkins, please message me and we can work out the terms of a challenge, if you'd like.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by distraff 3 months ago
distraff
Stephen_HawkinsXiaoFei98Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, Pro said that this world could not come by chance and had to be designed. Con said that we don't know how many possible worlds there are but that doesn't refute the argument about the complexity of this world coming by chance. Pro wins because Con did not convincingly refute that argument.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
Stephen_HawkinsXiaoFei98Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Obviously stronger arguments...
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
Stephen_HawkinsXiaoFei98Tied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con clearly had stronger material, but Pro didn't forfeit.
Vote Placed by Renascor 5 years ago
Renascor
Stephen_HawkinsXiaoFei98Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was very respectful when addressing Con. Pro also addressed Cons arguments with a well organized and insightful approach. Also, Pro used evidence that could not be denied as opposed to Cons very "vague" contentions. Overall, Great Debate.