The Instigator
CarlOfOtters
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

God isn't 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,960 times Debate No: 24148
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

CarlOfOtters

Pro

There is no reason to believe God is real. Religion began in a period of time in which we had no idea how the world works. So why is it that we insist on following archaic doctrines and looking to outdated holy texts for information?
socialpinko

Con

===Definitions===


God may be defined in the traditional theistic sense i.e. having the qualities of omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, and agency; a maximally great being. This does not necessitate that this God be the one portrayed in any of the major monotheistic religions, but simply a being possessing all of these qualities.

Real will signify having existence in reality or actuality. Something is not real when it does not have existence in reality or actuality.


===Burden of Proof===


The BoP will be on the Pro to defend the thesis that God isn't real and on Con to refute his case. If Con can successfully refute Pro's argument, they will not have fulfilled their BoP and Con would win. However, if Pro successfully defends the resolution, Con would not have fulfilled his BoP and Pro would win.


===Deconstructing Pro's arguments===


Contention I. My opponent argues that "Religion began in a period of time in which we had no idea how the world works." From this he deduces that there must not be any reason to believe in any of the tenets of religion, God being among those. Over the course of this argument though, my opponent commits the genetic fallacy[1]. Expanded on a bit, the genetic fallacy is evaluating an idea "based on its past—rather than on its present—merits or demerits, unless its past in some way affects its present value. For instance, the origin of evidence can be quite relevant to its evaluation, especially in historical investigations. [...] In contrast, the value of many scientific ideas can be objectively evaluated by established techniques, so that the origin or history of the idea is irrelevant to its value."[1]. The idea of a God may have originated in a less then modern scientific context, but that in itself does not disqualify the God hypothesis.


Contention II. My opponent's second shorter argument posts that "outdated holy texts" are not a reliable or correct place to look for information. It would be a mistake though to think that the Bible or Koran are the ONLY places where the God hypothesis is defended. Just a quick look online shows thousands of arguments and titles in theistic apologetics, among them Alvin Plantinga's "reformed epistemology"[2] and the modal cosmological argument. As we can see just by these arguments, belief in God is not contingent only on what is written in sacred religious texts, but can be justified (or at least attempted) by philosophical methods.


===Con Case===


-Ontological Argument


The ontological argument attempts to defend the existence of a maximally great being (God) by use of reason alone. While it has been defended under several variant formulations, the one presented here (summarized by the IEP of St. Anselm's version) is the one I undertake to defend in this debate. I will merely present the argument in this round and let my opponent bring his specific objections to it. From there I will defend the argument against any problems he brings up with it.


(1) It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
(2) God exists as an idea in the mind.
(3) A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
(4) Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
(5) But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
(6) Therefore, God exists.[3]


===Sources===


[1] http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
[2] http://philofreligion.homestead.com...
[3] http://www.iep.utm.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
CarlOfOtters

Pro

CarlOfOtters forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

Extend arguments and refutations.
Debate Round No. 2
CarlOfOtters

Pro

CarlOfOtters forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

Extend arguments and refutations. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
CarlOfOtters

Pro

CarlOfOtters forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

Extend arguments and refutations. Enjoy the song.
Debate Round No. 4
CarlOfOtters

Pro

CarlOfOtters forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

Vote Con. Here's a fun song.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
Wut u talkin bout Willis. Oh wait that's Dong Lover. I mean Don Glover.
Posted by cheesedingo1 5 years ago
cheesedingo1
I hate these. When smart people post good arguments, and then the noobs forfeit. sad.
Posted by cheesedingo1 5 years ago
cheesedingo1
I hate these. When smart people post good arguments, and then the noobs forfeit. sad.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
Newb forfeiture depresses me.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
CarlOfOtterssocialpinkoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: full forfeit by Pro
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
CarlOfOtterssocialpinkoTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit by Pro.