The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
16 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Con (against)
Winning
60 Points

God more likely than not 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: 2/15/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,874 times Debate No: 2674
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (16)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

God's existance can be proven, or at least is the most reasonable explanation. as a note though, i am not saying proven in terms of deductive fact. i'm using it in terms of proponderance of evidence, more likely than not, in a court of law.

(proof is known to have double meaning. it can mean evidence or conclusive proof. i'm using it in the former sense.

theists are known for being signled out for this phenomenon (miracles converting after nderf.org prohpests etc) over atheists etc.

you're right that there could be explanations other than an intelligence that is causing all this (you could even insist if a wonder worker in fact came and started doing miracles in the name of God that there might be another explantion, analogous to a degree to show the obstenance of your position given that this stuff happens to theists)
if people in gneeral had miracles etc then you'd have a point, but you don't have that.
the evidence is in favor of theists, and hte presumption is in favor of them.
if the thing that distinguishes them is their belief... then at best you could simply insist that it could be their mind or something. but, when the distinguishing variable is their belief, that's not the most obvious explanation.
atheists have the burden to rebut that presumption.

the most straightforward explanation is their belief itself distinguishes them.... and their belief is indicative of God.. so using my standard of proof, i rest my case.
Kleptin

Con

"God's existance can be proven, or at least is the most reasonable explanation."

I disagree. I propose that neither is the case. God's existence can NEVER be proven, and in terms of logic/reasoning, or any evidence whatsoever, the conclusion that an intelligent, rational, intervening supernatural being is unsound.

"as a note though, i am not saying proven in terms of deductive fact. i'm using it in terms of proponderance of evidence, more likely than not, in a court of law."

That's fine. I will allow this because it doesn't matter in the long run.

"(proof is known to have double meaning. it can mean evidence or conclusive proof. i'm using it in the former sense."

This, I will not allow. A proof must be both sound and valid. It need not be conclusive, I will grant you that half, but it can't just be one or two pieces of "evidence". The evidence must be overwhelming, and the evidence must be valid.

"theists are known for being signled out for this phenomenon (miracles converting after nderf.org prohpests etc) over atheists etc."

That's because when the only tool you own is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. A theist and a scientist looking at the same thing will think differently. The thing is, the scientist will be the one to do the legwork in finding an answerwhile the theist stands dumbfounded and attributes everything to God.

"you're right that there could be explanations other than an intelligence that is causing all this (you could even insist if a wonder worker in fact came and started doing miracles in the name of God that there might be another explantion, analogous to a degree to show the obstenance of your position given that this stuff happens to theists)
if people in gneeral had miracles etc then you'd have a point, but you don't have that."

Fallacious argument. There are many other valid conclusions that can follow. One of which would develop from the premise that theists see what they want to see --> therefore, miracles wouldn't be categorized by scientists. in other words, what a theist would call a miracle, a scientist could explain in another way.

"the evidence is in favor of theists, and hte presumption is in favor of them.
if the thing that distinguishes them is their belief... then at best you could simply insist that it could be their mind or something. but, when the distinguishing variable is their belief, that's not the most obvious explanation.
atheists have the burden to rebut that presumption."

I hope you know that this collection of words is a completely incoherent pile of non-sequitors. I haven't seen such a logically fallacious block of text for a LONG time.

I'll have to break it down a line at a time just to make it easier for my brain.

"the evidence is in favor of theists, and hte presumption is in favor of them."

You cite no evidence. And you use the word presumption, but don't state any presumption. Presumptions don't really work in debate. I don't like uncertainties as premises. Please clarify the evidence and presumption.

"if the thing that distinguishes them is their belief... then at best you could simply insist that it could be their mind or something. but, when the distinguishing variable is their belief, that's not the most obvious explanation.
atheists have the burden to rebut that presumption."

I honestly have no idea what this means. Please devote at LEAST half your next reply to this part of your argument alone because to me, it is completely nonsensical. I must emphasize however, that you are trying to convince me of the existence of something I do not believe in. Thus, I am NOT obligated to DISPROVE God, you are obligated to PROVE god. This is called "the burden of proof". If I say I have an enormous, intangible, invisible, neon-yellow elephant shrew in my room, I wouldn't ask you to prove that it DOESN'T exist. You would ask ME to prove it DOES exist.

"the most straightforward explanation is their belief itself distinguishes them.... and their belief is indicative of God.. so using my standard of proof, i rest my case."

By "rest" do you mean "lay to rest" as we would do with a dead man?

A distinguishing characteristic is not a validating one. While a belief may distinguish a particular religious faction, that's really all it does. It distinguishes them. Makes them different. It doesn't necessarily make them right.

I can form a cult right now where I worship the great Fuzzywuzzball, a giant lime-green hamster god. That would distinguish me. And since my belief of the great Fuzzywuzzball is indicative of the existence of a great lime-green hamster God, by your fallacious logic, that makes me right.

*******************

My opponent has boldly stated that there exists evidence for a God. Setting aside the fact that most of my opponent's argument was incomprehensible and quite possible, purposefully vague, I believe I have responded to the necessary points.

Now, I will offer an explanation as to why the belief in a God is NOT the logical conclusion. First and foremost, we must concede that humans are quite self-centered, baised, and ignorant. The Greeks examined their own society and created Gods in their image. Their concepts of job specialization, nobility, and transportation enabled them to come up with the elaborate story of Apollo being charged with moving the sun across the sky daily in a golden chariot.

Religions all over the world have the same characteristics. Humans borrowing from their own societies to develop a God. Simply speaking, the god of the penguins is a penguin. The god of the camels is a camel. Similarly, the god of the humans is a human, with all the attributes that we humans believe to be important.

Much like two Jewish boys growing up in New York City who developed the idea of "Superman", we took all the values from our society, our culture, our species and made a God. God was forged in our image. Not the other way around.

Intelligence, the urge to create, love, emotion, jealousy, forgiveness, justice, good, evil, all these things are purely human and only relate to humans. These are the attributes we worship and thus, these are the attributes we bestow on God. Examining the universe in its totality, none of these things have any sort of significance. So why would the greatest force in the universe be even remotely concerned with them?

If there is a God, it would be a nebulous force-like thing. Non-sentient, non-living. With no will, intelligence, emotions, etc. It would not interfere with human activities because in the scope of the universe, we humans are quite insignificant.

To assume we were designed by a supreme being is arrogance coupled with ignorance. To assume we are loved by a supreme being is arrogance coupled with ignorance. To assume we have anything to DO with a supreme being is arrogance coupled with ignorance.

And simply speaking, to assume a supreme being is also arrogance coupled with ignorance.

***********************

I now invite my opponent to make the promised argument for the existence of God and that can overwhelmingly do so.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

your's has been one of the most block headed, idiotic posts i have ever seen.
a big wall of text with no substance.

*******
you cite no evidence. And you use the word presumption, but don't state any presumption. Presumptions don't really work in debate. I don't like uncertainties as premises. Please clarify the evidence and presumption.
*******

you first say that miracle looking things occur, but that science has other explanations.
then you ask for me to show them. do you accept the premise or don't you?
look at the congregation of hte doctrine of the saints. i have a story that is pretty compelling of a healing at a church.
that miracle looking things occur or not is not a debate i'm going to have.
even richard dawkins would admit they occur.
he's never given an adequate response, so that's why i'm here.

basically, since theists have well documented miracle looking things, that occur in religous situations... it'd seem they are a special group of people. control group, etc, scientific theory that any third grader would know. but of which you are incapable of understanding.
so, where's the well documented miracle looking things with theists? the flaw with athestis and agnostics is hat they assume they occur, simply assume it. you'd think they'd be wondering if they're left out in the cold.

the definition of proof can simply mean evidence. this is common knowledge. something i realize you are lacking. if you don't accept my premise for how i define proof, then you should not hav taken my debate. we'd just be talking past each other and the only way you'd win is to attack something i didn't agree to from the beginning.

you sure are a fool.
Kleptin

Con

"your's has been one of the most block headed, idiotic posts i have ever seen.
a big wall of text with no substance."

That's fine. As long as it wasn't illogical, it's valid.

"you first say that miracle looking things occur, but that science has other explanations.
then you ask for me to show them. do you accept the premise or don't you?"

You're mistaken. I never asked you to show anything. I asked you to offer evidence that the miracles you cited were definite miracles as opposed to phenomena that the scientific community could explain, as well as show why these miracles show that your God exists. And there is no premise to accept, please don't throw around terms of debate incorrectly. What you are offering are thesis statements and points of argument.

"look at the congregation of hte doctrine of the saints. i have a story that is pretty compelling of a healing at a church.
that miracle looking things occur or not is not a debate i'm going to have.
even richard dawkins would admit they occur.
he's never given an adequate response, so that's why i'm here."

He doesn't have to deny that improbable things occur, all he has to do is show that they don't prove a God, which is why *I'm* here.

"basically, since theists have well documented miracle looking things, that occur in religous situations... it'd seem they are a special group of people. control group, etc, scientific theory that any third grader would know."

Of course, the problem here is that you have no control group. Your emphasis is purely on the variable group, making your experiment biased and therefore invalid. Also scientific theory that any third grader would know.

"but of which you are incapable of understanding."

What a keen and original insult to my intelligence. Would you care to elaborate on how this proves a God?

"so, where's the well documented miracle looking things with theists? the flaw with athestis and agnostics is hat they assume they occur, simply assume it. you'd think they'd be wondering if they're left out in the cold."

No, they understand that these improbable events occur. They just don't see any evidence that correlates these events with a God. You also don't propose an argument as to why this is so. So no, they aren't wondering if they're left out in the cold. They're inside wanting to hear a good reason to go out.

"the definition of proof can simply mean evidence."

It can, but not in terms of debate. Proof is conclusive. Evidence merely supports. Ostriches walk on two feet, and so do you. This piece of evidence suggests that you are an ostrich. By your definition, I have just offered a proof that you are an ostrich.

Of course, you are not an ostrich. This is because the evidence is not conclusive. And thus, not the same as proof.

"this is common knowledge. something i realize you are lacking."

What a witty turn around. I like how you spoke about common knowledge, then redirected it as an insult to me. How unpredictable and novel. Now again, would you care to explain how this shows that God exists?

"if you don't accept my premise for how i define proof, then you should not hav taken my debate. we'd just be talking past each other and the only way you'd win is to attack something i didn't agree to from the beginning."

Oh, so this entire debate is rigged. You define proof down to something minimal in order to argue that you can prove god exists.

"you sure are a fool."

Excellent thesis. I would enjoy debating that point with you at some later interval. Right now, I would like to talk about how you have no argument for the existence of God.

**********

My opponent concedes all the points I have made about God being a human construct. She decided to spend most of her time to hurl childish insults at me instead of offering a logical proof as to why she believes, as the title suggests, that God more likely than not exists.

My opponent has given but a single argument: that miracles occur. However, she herself acknowledges that people have different angles in viewing these events. However, she deceptively spins a fallacious argument around justifying the theists' positions based on their beliefs. And in some sort of logical leap I can't quite grasp, believes she has proven that God exists on the basis that theists believe miracles to be caused by God.

Since I have already shown that point to be invalid, and since my opponent has not yet responded to my argument that God is more likely than not a human construct, I shall await, again, the logical proof that God more likely than not exists.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
Kleptin

Con

My opponent has decided to forgo the last round because he probably has nothing left to say. My opponent has offered essentially no argument, offering instead a copied and pasted, recycled bunch of text which, to my great dismay, cannot even be deciphered by the other great minds on this site.

However, many points have been decoded from their nonsensical background and have been plucked out, and decimated. It can be seen that I have replied to and countered every single explanation and argument my opponent made outside of that initial post (although the explanations themselves were not logically structured and did not follow all the way through to a sound conclusion)

I have also made an argument as to why it is much more possible for God to have been created by Man as opposed to the other way around. This was at the bottom of my first response and my opponent has chosen to completely ignore it.

In any case, I have a standing argument and my opponent has absolutely none. So I rest my case and wait for the voters.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Devils_Advocate 9 years ago
Devils_Advocate
Why are god-believers always such horrible horrible debaters?

Oh.....never mind.
Posted by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
Great debate, Kleptin. I'm not quite sure what the other side was getting at. There were too many false statements to count. I'm also not sure why they thought the existence of a God could be proven anyways. By definition, a God of any faith cannot be proven. One of the generally accepted definitions of "faith" is a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." Ipso facto, the existence of a God cannot (and should not) be proven...or else we lose the very core of what faith is all about.
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
Yes He is, if he wants to be saved
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
My previous post is currently available for debate in the challenge stage. "It is noble to believe in God without proof of his existence."
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
Why are religious people so bent on proving there is a god? Believers are sacrificing nothing if they have to secure proof of god before they are willing to believe. If a theist believes he knows of solid proof of god's existence, he has avoided suspending his reasoning in order to believe. He is therefore taking no risk, no leap of faith. He is making no intellectual sacrifice whatsoever. Regardless of whether his reasoning is flawed, he is still comforted by his logic.

Why is that noble? Believers should not use logic to try to take the easy way out. They should embrace the fact that they believe in magic, miracles and the supernatural. They should cite faith as their motivation and take pride in that they are willing to suspend the natural desire to make only logical decisions. This is the true sacrifice. Belief in this manner demonstrates humbleness, humility, courage, and unwavering loyalty. It is commendable in that regard.
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
There is no debate that God exists if you believe in god. Debating god is pointless unless you want to be saved and learn what you must do to be saved. You either do or you don't believe in God. There is no middle ground. You either accept Jesus as your savior, including all of his teachings or you don't. It's not complicated, what's hard is adhering to his teachings, because they often interfere with personal behavior and public policy.
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
lol

I think I'm going to stop these God debates after the ones I have going right now.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 9 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
I think between us we've beaten several dead horses by now... Hopefully this person isn't important in her church hierarchy.
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
I'm trying to decide what approach to use. I don't want to beat a dead horse.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 9 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
I just went ahead and started picking it apart in the other one of these - not my fault it's not really coherent. All the worse for Pro's deliverance of a good debate...
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
dairygirl4u2cKleptinTied
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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
dairygirl4u2cKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
dairygirl4u2cKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
dairygirl4u2cKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
dairygirl4u2cKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
dairygirl4u2cKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 8 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
dairygirl4u2cKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Level27 9 years ago
Level27
dairygirl4u2cKleptinTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
dairygirl4u2cKleptinTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by dairygirl4u2c 9 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
dairygirl4u2cKleptinTied
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