The Instigator
Wandering_Sophist
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
pcmbrown
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points

God probably does not exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 7/5/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,850 times Debate No: 8894
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (10)

 

Wandering_Sophist

Pro

The parameters:

God is "a supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating
the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and
influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation."1

Existence is "the fact or state of continued being."2

I will begin with the "Argument From Evil":

1. If God exists, then God is wholly good and omnipotent.
2. A wholly good God would want to actualize the best possible world.
3. The best possible world would contain the greatest possible surplus of good over evil.
4. A world with the greatest possible surplus of good over evil would be a world devoid of evil.
5. An omnipotent God could actualize any world.
6. Evil exists.
7. Therefore, God does not exist.3

Next, "The Paradox of Omnipotence"

(1) God either can or cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it.
(2) If God can create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent.
(3) If God cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent.
Therefore:
(4) God is not omnipotent.
(5) If God exists then he is omnipotent.
Therefore:
(6) God does not exist.4

Finally, I conclude with the "argument from poor design"

1. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
2. Organisms have features that are suboptimal.
3. Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.5

1The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
2http://dictionary.reference.com...
3The University of Texas Skeptical Society
4http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...
5http://en.wikipedia.org...
pcmbrown

Con

probably: insofar as seems reasonably true, factual, or to be expected [1]

Ergo, my opponent, Pro, must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that God does not exist. Otherwise, it can be assumed that God constitutes an explanation of the universe's existence; an explanation which has some likelihood, however small, of being the truth.

Semantics:
My opponents definition is that of a god, not of the Abrahamic God. Thus, there is no reason to believe that he is omniscient, omnibenevolent, or omnipotent. Also, given that his definition stems from Richard Dawkins' work, I would like to provide a more neutral one, being: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force [2]. Neither definition, of course, grants a "god" the powers which my opponent has detailed in his arguments.

Given that a god is not necessarily omni-potent, scient, etc., my opponents "proofs", which constitute the entirety of his argument, fall. However, I will refute each briefly, under the assumption that a god is omni-excellent, though I do not concede that statement.

AFE: As mere mortals, we cannot state with certainty what is good, and what is evil, or that either of them exists. Ironically, most who oppose this "moral relativism" state that we derive good and evil from some sort of deity. [3]

TPoO: An omnipotent god can create a rock of any dimensions, presumably, even one which is infinite. However, he is further capable of lifting a rock of any size or weight. "So heavy that he cannot lift it" is not a quantity, but merely an failed attempt to demonstrate a logical fallacy. Such a rock does not, and cannot exist, for a rock must have certain dimensions. [4]

AfPD: Due to lack of space, see AFE.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://simple.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Wandering_Sophist

Pro

Wandering_Sophist forfeited this round.
pcmbrown

Con

Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
Wandering_Sophist

Pro

Wandering_Sophist forfeited this round.
pcmbrown

Con

Extend. Thanks for reading. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
PRO has points because I was votebombed by someone w/ multiple accounts ><
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Brian:"You cannot argue this with a Christian because their sole point of reference is their scriptures and to them logical arguments and scientific evidence are not relevant to the debate."
You seem to generalize Christians into one big bunch. I hate it when people do that.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Why does PRO have any points at all?
Defaulted all categories to CON due to multiple forfeits.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Con wins because his arguments were not rebutted. The argument that natural explanations are more plausible than God explanations could have been used, but the argument was not offered.
Posted by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
2000 characters?
Posted by nephilim 7 years ago
nephilim
Don't forget about free will.
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
Some Jehovah's Witnesses knocked on my door once and tried to flog me religion but I told them that I didn't believe in the existence of their god, or indeed in any other deity.

However, they told me I was wrong and they could prove it and they duly quoted me some passage out of the Bible as if this was irrefutable evidence.

You cannot argue this with a Christian because their sole point of reference is their scriptures and to them logical arguments and scientific evidence are not relevant to the debate.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Wandering_Sophist your definiton does not address the attributes of any of your arguments.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
haha
Posted by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
I negate:
God DEFINITELY does not exist.

BOOM BABY!
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
Wandering_SophistpcmbrownTied
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 mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Wandering_SophistpcmbrownTied
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 wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Wandering_SophistpcmbrownTied
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 tribefan011 7 years ago
tribefan011
Wandering_SophistpcmbrownTied
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 Steven123 7 years ago
Steven123
Wandering_SophistpcmbrownTied
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 Xer 7 years ago
Xer
Wandering_SophistpcmbrownTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by RagingDonkey 7 years ago
RagingDonkey
Wandering_SophistpcmbrownTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Wandering_SophistpcmbrownTied
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 Skobrin 7 years ago
Skobrin
Wandering_SophistpcmbrownTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Wandering_SophistpcmbrownTied
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