I don't need to prove your religion is false you need to prove it is true.
Debate Rounds (5)
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."
"(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.
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
"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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Capitalistslave 3 weeks ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.