The Instigator
nhbll232
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
alecburn
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

I don't need to prove your religion is false you need to prove it is true.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 1 vote the winner is...
nhbll232
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 384 times Debate No: 96848
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)

 

nhbll232

Pro

I have no reason to believe that your god is real. There are so many different gods, and its not possible for all of them to be real but it is possible for none of them to be. faith is not a reason it is the suspension of reason so belief can be preserved. I'm asking for clear evidence for the existence of god because if you want others to believe your radical claims you require radical evidence.

Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy illustrates this argument very well and it goes as follows
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
alecburn

Con

The great dilemma of philosophers is the question of why? The answer Modern philosophy is based off of was proposed by Rene Descartes "I think therefore i am." here's the part of Discourse on Method in which he states it:

"(he talks about how dreams are false memories and that your senses can lie to you) But immediately upon this I observed that, whilst I thus wished to think that all was false, it was absolutely necessary that I, who thus thought, should be somewhat; and as I observed that this truth, I think, therefore I am (COGITO ERGO SUM), was so certain and of such evidence that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged by the sceptics capable of shaking it, I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the philosophy of which I was in search."

Pretty poor reasoning is used and he made it his first principle of his personal philosophy. The point is that he's caught up on foundation. Without the idea that he could work up from a point of which he could prove he existed he would not have been able to reason why he should do what he did best that is improve himself and his opinions. The sad truth is that a unshakable foundation to build upward from doesn't exist you can not prove you are real.

And now to get to the point truth can be found from your point of reference in terms of the lowest form of absolute truth. Descartes was a christian that he proved to himself from the Cogito. Existentialists like Sarte would say that truth doesn't exist. Pinning your foundation to your senses often results in the belief that lack of proof means no God. Pinning your foundation on the idea that there is something greater unknow and relying less on your senses can lead to religious belief.

and...

it's a logical fallacy, appeal to ignorance, it just means that not enough evidence is present to make a conclusion since that's how logic works you need more then feelings and "well i think" statements to find relative truth
Debate Round No. 1
nhbll232

Pro

Your argument does not pertain to this debate if you are a true existentialist you wouldn't believe that anything is real, to debate this subject you need to accept a few things "the material world is real, or what we can observe with our senses is correct. an argument of existentialism is just a way for someone to derail debate and say that nothing is real so we cant draw conclusions about anything if you want to debate please stay on topic and don't try to confuse people. Stating that Descartes was a Christian also has no bearing on this debate and if you feel like talking about logical fallacies that was an obvious appeal to authority, not to mention missing the point with your existentialism argument. you have given no reason to believe in any religion so far, and i hope you'll do a better job and stay on topic in the next round.
alecburn

Con

It does you didn't ask me to prove religion true you asked me to convince you that your statement: "I don't need to prove your religion is false you need to prove it is true" is not true. I'll admit that existentialism isn't what you're looking for i was in a mood i guess. But the argument at the end was the real answer to why you're wrong:

"it's a logical fallacy, appeal to ignorance, it just means that not enough evidence is present to make a conclusion since that's how logic works you need more then feelings and "well i think" statements to find relative truth"

Imagine if i said x+y=7 assuming y is 5 and asked if it was true you would say it's true if x is 2 but that's the problem we don't know what x is. Assuming "the material world is real, or what we can observe with our senses is correct" feelings do not correlate with logic i know you already know this but you still insist on religion being false because you don't feel it. You feel a scientific theory is correct because you associate science as being correct because it's just the observation of reality. And it concerns itself with all physical truth but you treat it's guesses at what it doesn't know the same way. Look at string theory after more evidence it's proven wrong.

There isn't any good logic to deny it or prove it. Truth at a level higher than human understanding is all around us we humans are limited beings in a (possibly) infinite universe there's a point beyond human comprehension and the existence of a creator is not something you get to have gut feelings about.

Also The teapot analogy is correct but you're using it wrong "it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense." His argument is a criticism of the absurdity of religious details that we would reject due to trends we believe like information coming from a long time ago. He's saying its religious arguments are absurd he's not saying they have to be wrong.
Debate Round No. 2
nhbll232

Pro

I don't believe they are wrong I just don't believe they are right. In the same way that I don't believe that unicorns are real, I have no proof of there nonexistence but that doesn't mean i'm gonna hunt one so I can drink its blood and become immortal like Voldemort. I have no basis to believe there is no god but i also have no basis to believe there is one, or many, lack of evidence against something doesn't make it plausible. I used Russel's Teapot to Illustrate that fact. The idea that the existence of a god or gods is on equal footing with the possibility of there being no gods is incorrect. I have a lack of belief in gods which is different from the belief that there are no gods, although I believe there are no gods that's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying there is no reason to live as if there is a god until testable evidence is given supporting it.
alecburn

Con

Okay i guess that comes out from your opening statement but the title made it sound like you wanted to prove the religion is false. Since were at pretty much the same point ill try and give my thoughts on what i think you don't understand about how many religious people justify their beliefs.

"faith is not a reason it is the suspension of reason so belief can be preserved." again there is no logic to disprove faith it's a standstill from both sides. Belief in your senses is as much of belief as religious belief i don't think i need to give examples of your senses not always being perfect. This belief in the validity of your senses is a good parallel, to some they think of the existence of a higher being as being the best explanation you think the screen in front of you is tangible because it the conclusion you have gotten from touching things that look to be in front of you. You aren't leaving out reason you're just doing what you think is best in lieu of a better more consistent answer.

"There are so many different gods, and its not possible for all of them to be real but it is possible for none of them to be." Personally i'm Universalist that believes a single God was seen and described differently creating monotheistic religions with similar practices. Polytheism was the worship of flawed humans. Some stretch and say nature worshipers indirectly worship god. I'm iffy on it.

"I'm asking for clear evidence for the existence of god because if you want others to believe your radical claims you require radical evidence" People who believe often have a reason as to why this ranges from asking for unlikely help and receiving it or others like myself are convinced they've experienced oddities when God was asked to do something that can't be explain by chance or conformation bias.

"The idea that the existence of a god or gods is on equal footing with the possibility of there being no gods is incorrect." Why? i would guess but the character limit is too short.
Debate Round No. 3
nhbll232

Pro

Simple do you think there is as much a chance of unicorns existing as not existing? If so then I doubt ill be able to convince you of anything, enjoy your unicorn hunting, but if not then why not apply that same logic to god? What makes him/her so different.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but you just used a very common logical fallacy, Argument from personal experience, or an anecdotal fallacy. How should I know that that funny feeling you get when you pray isn't just indigestion you seem intelligent and I doubt you are really an existentialist so you rely on logic to draw some conclusions so why not use it here.
alecburn

Con

First i did not suggest others ability to have experiences is a valid argument for the existence of God. I would not i'm saying why others are able to do what you say is not logical, anecdotal evidence is valid in defining your own beliefs since the fallacy part comes the lack of reliability.

Second you keep suggesting that God is likened to a unicorn this is not the case. God is this thing that if real is beyond human comprehension, unicorns are a variant of horses you've been told don't exist. God can not be likened to personal experience. The teapot orbiting the sun should make you consider well is it possible someone put it there? Did any astronaut take a teapot and not come back with it? This is relating the personal experience and the logic you are aware of, e.i everything happens because of a equal and opposite reaction and all the other laws of physics. Now stay with me what would a 4th dimensional world look like? Don't know? Good because that's point at which people say God could comprehend and possibly exist in. God does not play by human rules he created them. To biasedly liken it to there not being a box of pop-tarts in your fridge is downplaying the implications of what's be suggested.
Debate Round No. 4
nhbll232

Pro

I forgot to mention it before but you've repeated the same fallacy I ignorantly missed in the last round special pleading saying that god is not subject to logic and rationality because he is god and he created those things is another great way to derail a debate it is a logical fallacy and should be ignored as such. " God does not play by human rules he created them." So there is no evidence for god but that's only because he exists outside of human comprehension? If that's the case then no one has any real reason to believe in him. "God is this thing that if real is beyond human comprehension" If this is the case then we wont find any evidence therefore there is not a logical reason to believe in gods.
I make my unicorn argument because its the first thing that popped into my head but you could insert any other god that isn't yours and it would have the same effect I assume you don't believe in the gods of classical Greece so
I have no evidence that Zeus doesn't exist but I'm not going to live my life as if he does, belief in the existence of Zeus should be suspended until proper evidence of Zeus is gathered. This also applies to any other gods. If you can dismiss Zeus or Shiva or Osiris based on lack of evidence why not dismiss the other religions on that same lack of evidence, or you can continue special pleading for your own deeply held religious beliefs.
alecburn

Con

It's not a fallacy he can impact his creation. And yes it's hard to logically argue against the idea that God is beyond logic but what else could happen and still define a God? To create something you had to have existed without it. And that goes for the polytheism stuff too if Zeus existed he wouldn't be a God he would be a higher being but not be a creator.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by alecburn 2 weeks ago
alecburn
I don't get it i pointed out "God does not play by human rules and logic" was not a fallacy look elsewhere it's not a fallacy it just makes discussion hard. But that's how I believe it is there's this abstract thing that somehow someway had the power to create life and is perfect and omnipotent and omnipresent because what's real to that thing is an entirely different reality than what we feel.

We both agreed halfway through we were of the same opinion relative to the topic and we went into general discussion. Do people not read the debates?
Posted by stcornerap 2 weeks ago
stcornerap
canis: Very true
Posted by canis 2 weeks ago
canis
Choosing to believe or not in purple elephants is 100% up to you..
Posted by stcornerap 3 weeks ago
stcornerap
To missmedic: Choosing to be a believer or not is 100% up to you. Saying that there is no practicality to the belief or existance of God is a very interesting statement. Like saying there is no practical reason for caring if our world exists or not. Or telling someone there is no practical reason to care if their father is alive or not or really their father. I'm not sure how to debate how something looks, with someone who has yet to open their eyes. If the debate was whether an apple is green or red, I'm not sure how it's helpful for you to join the debate saying "it doesn't matter because it doesn't matter if the apple is real or not". Do you possibly carry the beliefs of Nihilism? It's okay if you do I'm just not sure where you're coming from. Saying that there is no relevance to a debate because there is no relevance the debate topic is not winning or adding to a debate. It's choosing not to look at either side and expecting both sides to concede based on a blanket statement carrying no weight, logic or evidence. Not to mention (but I will) that it would be better suited for a debate between religions not the current subject at hand. I appreciate you wanting to voice your opinion I really do and I hope you continue. I just hope that you can put weight behind your words so that we can understand. Each time I see you post it seems like your M.O. Is to bring a book with no pages. Keep on trucking! Your feelings are valid, just let us know why. Thanks for your post!
Posted by missmedic 3 weeks ago
missmedic
stcornerap
The point I was making is that if there's no practical difference between believing and not believe in any gods, then there's no practical difference between the existence and non-existence of any gods. This makes belief unnecessary.
Posted by stcornerap 3 weeks ago
stcornerap
Miss Medic, I wonder why you say that belief is not required When every god/God centered religion requires belief for salvation. By what authority are you saying this? Do you have evidence or do you just like to make light of things you choose not to understand. I'm just wondering if you know something the rest of us don't, or if your comments are for attention but hold no wait. I hope this doesn't come off argumentative , but I've replied to you comments a couple times already in the heart of true conversation. If your words are empty and for entertainment I'll know how to take them in the future. Thanks😀
Posted by TheThinker01 3 weeks ago
TheThinker01
This topic doesn't even need an entire debate, the statement by itself is one of the most beautiful things I've heard, it appeals to religious people and Athiests.
Posted by missmedic 3 weeks ago
missmedic
True or not, god belief is not necessary.
Posted by stcornerap 3 weeks ago
stcornerap
If you are open to investigating the evidence for God's existance I think this is a really good place to start. Especially if you happen to be more science minded. It's kind of like seeing how God created the world, not just being told to believe that he did. If you watch it and it raises questions or ideas I'd be happy to talk to you on or off this page. Not that I'm an expert, I'm just happy that you're a person who is in search of truth. I wish everyone was, no matter what their position is. Thanks for starting this post😀 https://youtu.be...
Posted by stcornerap 3 weeks ago
stcornerap
Science has proven that time, space, matter, and energy were created meaning that something outside of time, space, matter and energy had to create it. Scientifically there is evidence of intelligent design. Choosing to believe what is responsible for that design is up to you. You have free will. Whether it's one of the many gods out there or you believe it's possible that nothing mixed with nothing can create everything you have to choose to believe in something. If you choose to investigate the god route we have thousands of years of evidence proving that the Bible is the most reliable collection of ancient documents that we have in existence today. More than any other ancient historical evidence. Beliving in God as a personal God and believing in Jesus as our savior takes faith. Believing in the Bible as being historically accurate is accepted by theologians, historians, archaeologists, and even atheists. There is plenty of evidence for the existance of God, more so than any other explanation of existance. Choosing to ignore this evidence is a choice that everyone has the right to have.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Capitalistslave 3 weeks ago
Capitalistslave
nhbll232alecburnTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both pro and con had good conduct. Neither made spelling or grammatical errors. Pro had a more convincing argument as they pointed out the fallacies con used. Neither had sources so neither win for sources.