The Instigator
Brah
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tejretics
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

God/ religion

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 6 votes the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 616 times Debate No: 77539
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (6)

 

Brah

Pro

Many people point to the recent advances in the understanding of evolutionary theory and Big Bang theory as proof that there is no God and we don't need, however many theories about the origins of the universe and the origins of life that are widely accepted by the scientific community have multiple problems. For example, the Big Bang theory by its own admission defies the current laws of physics and the theory of evolution fails to meet the criteria of the scientific method for multiple reasons. I myself am a Christian but I realize that blindly denying science and opting for faith alone is a very exclusionary view. I look forward to hearing your opinions positive or negative about the existence of a god and your views either religiously or scientifically on the origins of the universe and life.
tejretics

Con

Preface
This was an irresistible challenge. I will be arguing against the existence of God, and why the hypothesis is not needed and unlikely to be true.


Atheism is the default a priori position
Skepticism is rational
Inspired and adapted from our fellow member Envisage. With this argument, I shall be affirming that atheism is the default position a priori. This is a stronger version of the argument from burden of proof. The argument shall take the form of a reductio ad absurdum.


Reductio –


A: All positive claims are more likely true than false
1) Therefore, claim A is more likely to be true than false
2) Therefore, claim B is more likely to be true than false
3) Therefore, claim C is more likely to be true than false
Infinity) Therefore, claim “...” is more likely to be true than false


Claims exist within reality, thus are subject to logical laws. But this entails that even logically impossible claims are more likely true than false. Consider:


A: All positive claims are more likely true than false (assumption)
P1) If ‘A’ is true, then at least one positive claim is more likely true than false
P2) If one positive claim is more likely true than false, then another positive claim is more likely false than true
P3) If one positive claim is more likely false than true, then not all positive claims are more likely true than false
C) If positive claims are more likely true than false, then not all positive claims are more likely true than false. ‘A’ entails a contradiction; therefore ‘A’ is false.


Via. reductio ad absurdum, the notion that we must accept all positive claims as more likely true is refuted. Skepticism is the *only* position that does not run into such an argument, and, as such, one must always be skeptical of any assertion.


Application of skepticism to God
We require a definition of the term ‘God’ to be specific as to what attributes the concept possesses. Basically, a normal position would entail the following properties:

  1. a. Causal agency
  2. b. Creation of the universe
  3. c. Intelligence
  4. d. Free will
  5. e. Omnipotence
  6. f. Omniscience


Each of these properties runs into the problems I presented above, since the properties of creation of the universe, omnipotence, and omniscience are *exclusive* to God, i.e. no other entity possesses them. As such, take this reductio ad absurdum argument:


A: All positive claims are more likely to be true than false (assumption)
P1) A claim that God possesses the 3 exclusive properties is more likely to be true than false a priori
P2) A claim that a separate object ‘E’ possesses the 3 exclusive properties is also more likely to be true than false
P3) P2 and P1 entail a contradiction by definition
C) ‘A’ entails a contradiction, hence ‘A’ is false


As such, skepticism of God entails as the best position a priori.


Theological Non-Cognitivism
Preface
This is an epistemological argument against God’s existence. In other words, I shall neither use ontology or metaphysics to affirm the position I take here – it shall be that the term “God” doesn’t refer to a coherent concept, thus attributing existence to it is incoherent. First, I must clarify what “theological non-cognitivism” is. Theological non-cognitivism posits that “words such as ‘God’ ... are not cognitively meaningful.”[http://goo.gl...] So I’ll be defending the meaninglessness of the term “God”, and, in the process, affirm that the existence of such an incoherent concept is impossible. The argument is formalized:


P1) If God lacks a positively defined attribute, then secondary & relational attributes cannot be justified
P2) God lacks a positively defined attribute
C) Secondary & relational attributes of God are meaningless, thus God, by definition, is meaningless


Defense of Premise 1
For meaningfulness of a term of an entity, then its relational attributes must be defined as contingent on a positive attribute. For instance, let us consider an entity x. A relational attribute of x is that it weighs one pound. If a person asks “what is x?”, an answer of “x is 1 lb” only describes a relational attribute of x, thus can’t affirm what x actually is, since a positive attribute isn’t shown. If y is a concept without any such positive attribute, then the concept y is meaningless.


We can only reasonably talk of the existence of an entity if the entity has positive attributes in addition to relational attributes or secondary attributes, since if an entity’s sole attribute is “1 lb”, then the entity can’t exist since “1 lb” is a secondary attribute that is used to describe the being, rather than define it.


Defense of Premise 2
Let us consider the attributes of the term “God” as defined in this debate – intelligence, supernatural power, transcendence, intelligence, creating & ruling the universe. Let’s analyze the attributes individually, and I shall show you that the attributes are all secondary or relational attributes.


“Intelligence” is defined as “the ability to acquire knowledge and skills”. Now, let’s try applying a property of intelligence to an entity x, which someone is asking to define. “X is defined as intelligent” is incoherent if intelligence is the sole attribute the entity has (in addition to, perhaps, other secondary & relational attributes). The same can be applied to any entity, thus intelligence isn’t enough. Similarly, “greatness”, “power”, “creation & rule of the universe”, and “transcendence” all fail, even together, to define x as a coherent entity.


“Intelligence” and “power” are also relational attributes, i.e. require a standard to be coherent. For example, something can’t be considered “powerful” unless we have a standard or objective criterion to coherently define “powerful”, or “intelligent”. Since God is transcendent, he is outside the universe – thus a standard external to God is lacked. A standard internal to God is question begging.


Conclusion
Thus, the two premises entail that the concept of God is intrinsically meaningless as it has only relational & secondary attributes, and no primary or positive attributes.

Debate Round No. 1
Brah

Pro

Saying that God is non existent because he only possesses secondary traits of values is in it self flawed. As humans have give the definition of these words, it's entirely understandable that we could not understand their true meaning in the eyes of God. God like infinity is something we can comprehend with out actually being able to understand its fill value. We can imagine a number that never ends but our brains can't actually comprehend the enormity of such a thing. You could also say the size of the universe also falls into that category. We can understand the concept that we live in an amazingly large place but we can't begin to actually begin to wrap our heads around the actuall size of it. These concepts are much like a God, we can understand the concept but we can't begin to actually visualize it. In regards to other theories of the origins of the universe, many of the excepted theories like the Big Bang theory defy the very laws of physics. The scientific community eve admits that they have no way to explain the conditions of the universe before the Big Bang happened. That's because the Big Bang defies the very laws of science. In the Big Bang theory, it is believed that all the matter in the universe was contained in a single point called a singularity and that this point began to rapidly expand. This already is nonsense because the definition of a singularity is a point which is infinitely small and a place where gravity takes on an infinite value. If this were true, then the Big Bang could have never happened because in order for the universe to expand there would have to be a force stronger than infinity, literally an impossibility. Also with the recent advance of science, we have found a few constants in the universe that are so precise that if they were even slightly different, the universe would have not formed the way it did and would esentialybe sterile of life. One of these numbers is the rate of expansion caused by the Big Bang. The rate of expansion according to physicists if the rate of expansion had differed by only .0000000000000000001 places, the universe would've completely different than it is today
tejretics

Con

Preface
Please note that the BoP is shared – and Pro has failed to fulfill their share of the BoP, as I will note later. Pro also drops my argument from atheism being the default a priori position, so presume Con.


Theological Non-Cognitivism
Saying that God is non-existent because he only possesses secondary traits of values is in itself flawed. As humans have give the definition of these words, it's entirely understandable that we could not understand their true meaning in the eyes of God.


This is a logically airtight argument, i.e. if the premises are true, the conclusion follows. As such, it doesn’t suffer from any formal fallacy. But Pro just denies the conclusion without denying the premises. Unfortunately, in a logically sound argument, regardless of any problems with the conclusion or any separate arguments against the conclusion, if the premises are true, the conclusion is undeniable.


Take the gibberish term ‘jill’. A person asks, “What is ‘jill’?”, and the only response is: “Jill is 40 lbs.” That is clearly not a sufficient response, but if 40 lbs is the only way to describe the term ‘jill’, and all other definitions are impossible, then the term ‘jill’ is incoherent and doesn’t exist.


= Rebuttals =
Pro’s only argument is that the Big Bang has some flaws and fails to explain the origin of the universe, so God exists. This employs a flawed form of reasoning called ‘God of the Gaps’. “God of the gaps is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence.”[https://en.wikipedia.org...]


Pro challenges the existence of an actual infinite, and argues that singularities are, thus, impossible. This is flawed as observations of the WMAP have proven the universe itself is spatially infinite – so an actual infinity is possible.[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...] Furthermore, singularities are even found in black holes, thus are proven to exist.[https://en.wikipedia.org...]


Secondly – the Big Bang doesn’t talk about the cause of the universe. Evidence from special relativity suggests that time is another spatial dimension, the passage of time is illusory, and that the past, present, and future are all equally ‘real’, a position called eternalism.[ http://plato.stanford.edu...] Under eternalism, change doesn’t ontologically happen, and it shows the universe never “began”, thus couldn’t be caused. As such, there is no cause of the universe.


The resolution is negated.

Debate Round No. 2
Brah

Pro

Brah forfeited this round.
tejretics

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
Brah

Pro

Brah forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Brah

Pro

Brah forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 2 years ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Pro, infinity does not exist. A number that never ends does not exist; this is why our brains cannot comprehend it.

If God truly is 'like infinity', then I'd be led into thinking that God doesn't exist - if there's any attribute I'm sure infinity has, it's [-existent] :P
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
The very bases of science is intellectual honesty
Science's "faith" is built on experimental proof, religious faith is based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. The two meanings of the word "faith," therefore, are not only different, they are exact opposites. Science does not rule out the existence of a higher consciousness, there is simply no empirical evidence to suggest that a god exist. A god or gods would have to exist without contradiction It's not rational to believe in something with logically contradictory characteristics. It's not rational to believe in something defined one way when the allegedly same thing is defined in a contradictory manner by someone else.
Science has done far more to both explain the world around us and help us improve our condition than millennia of religion.
The more you know the less you believe.
Posted by mentalist 2 years ago
mentalist
Science puts faith in the speed of light, yet, this faith has recently been shown to possibly be misplaced. Until science can quantify, explain and duplicate the known universe it should not rule out the existence of a higher consciousness.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
God and religion are in a symbiotic relationship, the two are connected by faith. Faith required that you believe despite an absence of expected evidence or despite the presence of conflicting evidence.
But how do we detect lies?
Through the absence of expected evidence or the presence of conflicting evidence.
The very things that faith demanded we disregard. We do not need to argue the existence of god, but the necessity, as we all can be good without god.
The more you know the less you believe.
Posted by ChickenBakuba 2 years ago
ChickenBakuba
tejretics simplify your argument

No one would vote for you if they don't understand sh1t.

But at least they get the idea that you are smart :P
Posted by ChickenBakuba 2 years ago
ChickenBakuba
How do you ppl create underlined sentences and bold sentences?

I'd like to do that
Posted by ChickenBakuba 2 years ago
ChickenBakuba
You didn't have to go overkill mode tejretics
Posted by ChickenBakuba 2 years ago
ChickenBakuba
Good luck brah

If I were you I would check that the topic would not be something that tejretics or zaroette would find interesting, or I would set it such that they couldn't accept it....
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
god is religion
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by salam.morcos 2 years ago
salam.morcos
BrahtejreticsTied
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: Near full forfeit
Vote Placed by Diqiucun_Cunmin 2 years ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
BrahtejreticsTied
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: Conduct to Con because Pro forfeited three rounds. Pro made very little attempt to argue for God. He or she relied on bare assertions ('we could not understand their true meaning in the eyes of God'), and none of his or her arguments were actually positive arguments for God. Even if the Big Bang Theory were false, it does *not* follow that God does not exist. Con, by contrast (no pun intended), made legitimate attempts to negate the resolution by demonstrating that atheism is the default a priori position and that God is not defined according to the known attributes of God. Pro only responded to the latter argument using another bare assertion (that God was 'infinite') and did not respond to Con's reasoning, and hence did not win on this argument either. Therefore, arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Midnight1131
BrahtejreticsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF by Pro, so conduct to Con.
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 2 years ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
BrahtejreticsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
BrahtejreticsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited many times. This is bad conduct.
Vote Placed by greatkitteh 2 years ago
greatkitteh
BrahtejreticsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit.