The Instigator
Fenrir
Pro (for)
Losing
30 Points
The Contender
darkenedcorridor
Con (against)
Winning
139 Points

I am God, and you do not exist.

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: 12/12/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,676 times Debate No: 271
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (52)

 

Fenrir

Pro

Yes, that's right. Not only am I God, but you don't even exist. How can I support such a grand claim? Simple.

First, the reason I am God. I use the term God somewhat loosely, but mean it to suggest that I am all powerful and all knowing, and I created the universe. I think that's close enough. So here's the deal: all of creation is the product of my subconsciousness. Everything I see, feel, touch, everything I sense, is a fabrication of my mind. While this may seem impossible, just think: all of our senses can be broken down to nothing more than neurological reactions to various stimuli. Why, then, would it be so strange to think that our minds can simply create senses even though we are not in fact encountering them? And then, why could we not argue that every single thing is just some imaginary facade of reality, created by our subconsciousness? Existance is fake, and reality is just an illusion that I have fabricated. It is all just a creation of my mind. Thus, I am omniscient, because everything that can be known, every bit of data, any idea that can be presented, is in fact mine, or at least belonging to my subconscious self. Additionally, I am omnipotent, because if everything is the production of my mind, then I have the potential to alter anything.

Now, for the fact that you do not exist. Along with everything else, you are a fabrication of my mind. You may say you have your own consciousness, that this can not be, but if you were to tell me that, it would really just be my mind creating the illusion of someone telling me that. There is no argument that you can pose to me that can prove that you are not simply not a creation of my own subconscious.
darkenedcorridor

Con

While I do not object to your claims of skepticism about the material world, I can argue against your idea that I do not exist. But before I do, we must satisfy who I am to convince. I can convince myself of my own existence very easily "I think, therefore I am." therefore even if you are making me up, I exist and I am a perceiving being. That much I can prove to myself. I cannot however prove it to you, as you can only prove that you exist to yourself. Luckily it is the vote of the general community that I need. They can prove that they exist to themselves as well; but they cannot prove to themselves (conclusively) that you exist. Moreover your ontological status (the status of your existence) is equally suspect to mine, from the position of a third party reading this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Fenrir

Pro

Ah, I suppose I did not make it clear. The point would be to prove to me that I am wrong; that is, one must prove to me that they do in fact exist.
darkenedcorridor

Con

ahh well had I known that the exact question was prove to you that I exist, I wouldn't have answered the challenge as I do agree that I cannot prove to you that I exist.

However I still hold that the question as stated faces the voting audience, and treated as such your argument falls through because they cannot prove you exist either.
Debate Round No. 2
Fenrir

Pro

Quite frankly, the voting audience means very little to me, especially in this debate. As for to whom you must prove your existance, I appologize if I was too equivocal, but I believe it really wasn't too hard to discern; I quote:

"There is no argument that you can pose -to me- that can prove that you are not simply not a creation of my own subconscious."
(from my original argument, emphasis added)

Also, I dont believe my argument falls through at all. My argument was not about whether or not I existed; rather, it was that my existance and consciousness allows for the possibility that I am God, and that it was impossible for me to be personally proven otherwise.
darkenedcorridor

Con

allow me to clear up my terms, my belief is that there is logically no way that one could "prove" their existence to anyone but themselves as that proof would require empirical means, which are fallible (you could just be a dream).

However I can argue against your claim of godhood. Your prerequisites of godhood are that you would have to be "all powerful and all knowing, and I created the universe." let me tackle those one at a time.

Created the universe: well if you were indeed the only mind and all reality was merely phenomenal (as apposed to noumenal) then you would indeed be the creator of your universe.

All powerful: unless your experience differs from my (purported) experience, you can not change certain appearances of your experience, such as gravity, and the rules that define extension in space.

All knowing: let me first to lay down a criteria for knowledge claims. For a claim to be knowledge it must be a justified, true, belief. Now, obviously if you were the god of your phenomenal world, your knowledge would be justified and true. And things you didn't know would literally not exist. so perhaps I could grant you this one.

The reason I was mistaken and thought the argument would be a debate for an audience, is that you were making claims as if you were speaking to such an audience, "How can I support such a grand claim? Simple." this directed phrase implied to me that you were interested in others opinions, ironic as that would be.
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by quantummechanics97 5 years ago
quantummechanics97
I completely agree with Pro's argument except for 1 thing. one cannot claim to be all-knowing
Posted by MasklessJRAF 6 years ago
MasklessJRAF
If this guy can sense that he is God it must be a fabrication of his own mind according to his own theory. Which I have proved is obviously self-defeating. He never has a real point to prove.
Posted by Darth_Grievous_42 8 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
I believe Fenrir won this one. I also think most of the votes where given to Darkenedcorridor because of personal feelings, rather than the debate itself, as I believe is many times the case. The last con argument did not really disprove Fenrir's argument. Supposing everything is a creation of Fenrir's mind, then he is not really seeing an actual persons argument but the image of one, which means that he never saw anything at all. He would also be all knowing, as anything he did know at anytime would be all the knowledge. To possibly disprove Pro, Con needed to try to argue from Fenrir's point of view not his own, because according to the argument, he does not exist. Only Fenrir, in this case, is all that really matters. This includes the opinions, which would only be images of his eyes. These do not exist, therefore, how could he express any interest in them? The majority of opinions voting against him, would only be his subconscious more self destructive side coming out. Since he has no direct control over his subconscious, the stronger side would prevail, which would also explain how he would not be able to directly bend the laws of physics.

I do not mean to be insulting, but I found Darkenedcorridor's argument lacking in points that directly disprove Fenrir's topic, thus I would find Fenrir the victor, though the general public is against me.
Posted by Creed-Diskenth 8 years ago
Creed-Diskenth
Wow... you have too much spare time man.

Im going to break this down for you. The absolutely only way i can win is to attack you personally. This actually doesnt win the argument, but makes you look like a narcistic idiot whom no one will vote for.

Your argument was clever. However, you have no proof if the argument was turned on you.

To quote: "There is no argument that you can pose -to me- that can prove that you are not simply not a creation of my own subconscious."

This argument is not only impossible to win for the challenger, but yourself as well. Very creative, but holds up like a tissue in a hurricane.
Posted by Fenrir 8 years ago
Fenrir
It's cool; just as a heads up, I decided to try my argument again, so that will also be around as I did not notice your comment until after I had made it.
Posted by coolman 8 years ago
coolman
For anyone interested, I am going to open a debate similar to this one, but I will reverse the perspective, "You are God, and I do not exist." It presents the same concept, but should produce some different arguments from the responder because of the change of the literal context of the sentence. Fenrir, I hope you don't mind if I steal some of your same points.
Posted by coolman 8 years ago
coolman
darkenedcorridor, you said that Fenrir's statement "You do not exist" is false because you know that you exist. Sure, that argues the literal meaning of the phrase, "YOU do not exist." But what if by YOU, me meant I. In other words. Maybe Fenrir does not exist. Maybe Fenrir is a product of your imagination, which would mean that his comment is true, CONCEPTUALLY instead of literally. Shoot, maybe you are both a figment of my imagination. My mind created you both, this website, this thread, just so I could imagine myself commenting on this debate. My vote goes to Fenrir, because the statement, "I am God and you do not exist," when spoken in the first-person, cannot be proven wrong.
Posted by Fenrir 8 years ago
Fenrir
Sorry, I didnt pinch myself. Im just that kind of person...

And as for the "you" that does not exist, I did not specify (again, as it were...Ill admit that I did a poor job at presenting this argument) that you cannot prove your own consciousness or identity.

For Joe, the argument of why everything is as it is does seem to be one of the most convincing, in terms of logic. However, while I cannot give a reasonable answer, it does not necessarily disprove my argument. And why do I talk to people if they don't even in fact exist? Because I'd rather be crazy than lonely.
Posted by bobsatthepub 8 years ago
bobsatthepub
By the way? Did you actually pinch yourself? Because that would be kinda cool, if so go get a drink of water and... before you go to sleep tonight raise your right arm as high as you can into the air... I'm changing the world on an international scale now, that's how cool I am. =)
Posted by bobsatthepub 8 years ago
bobsatthepub
"But I could just as easily argue that for whatever reason my subconscious mind decided to create the image of "you" telling me that, in which case it would simply be my own influence causing me to pinch myself."

Your mind created the image that is me, and thus that image being me exists, as I am that image I exist. "...you do not exist." created in your mind or not I am here.
52 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
FenrirdarkenedcorridorTied
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 Monteray 3 years ago
Monteray
FenrirdarkenedcorridorTied
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: The other is an idiot
Vote Placed by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
FenrirdarkenedcorridorTied
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 CIIReligion 3 years ago
CIIReligion
FenrirdarkenedcorridorTied
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 rowsdower 3 years ago
rowsdower
FenrirdarkenedcorridorTied
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 
Vote Placed by MasklessJRAF 6 years ago
MasklessJRAF
FenrirdarkenedcorridorTied
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 beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
FenrirdarkenedcorridorTied
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 
Vote Placed by stevster 8 years ago
stevster
FenrirdarkenedcorridorTied
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 Evan_MacIan 8 years ago
Evan_MacIan
FenrirdarkenedcorridorTied
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 solo 8 years ago
solo
FenrirdarkenedcorridorTied
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