The Instigator
TechFreak
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tejretics
Con (against)
Winning
53 Points

Is it probable that God exists?

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 10 votes the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/20/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,032 times Debate No: 77893
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (27)
Votes (10)

 

tejretics

Con

I accept.

Observation

I would like to note that the burden of proof lies entirely with Pro. This is to prevent committing the fallacy of negative proof [1] and to be in accordance with Russell's teapot analogy [2].

References

[1] http://rationalwiki.org...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
TechFreak

Pro

TechFreak forfeited this round.
tejretics

Con

My opponent, unfortunately, has forfeited, and, thus, has not presented arguments to fulfil their burden of proof.


Since the burden of proof lies entirely upon Pro, I need only extend the observation I affirmed in the first round.


I extend all arguments.


I argue that an assertion that “God exists” is only as reasonable as the idea that a unicorn or Flying Spaghetti Monster exists – God is a paranormal being that has not been proven. My argument is based on the lack of evidence.


If there is no evidence for a claim X, then X can be rejected as unlikely, according to Bertrand Russell’s celestial teapot analogy [1]. Since there is no evidence for the assertion “God exists”, it can be dismissed as a claim as absurd as the existence of a unicorn, since it involves the violation of natural laws, and remains possible only epistemologically.


Negation Case


A1: Problem of Evil


God is traditionally understood as being “omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent” [2]. While I think it is a weak argument, for a change, I shall use Rowe’s inductive formulation of the “problem of evil”, phrased syllogistically:


1) There (probably) exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.

2) An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.

C) An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being does not exist.


Premise one is probabilistic and intuitive. Rowe writes, “In some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering.” [3]


Premise two is true by definition – an omniscient being knows of all such occurrences, an omnipotent being can prevent all such occurrences, and an omnibenevolent being would prevent all such occurrences.


The conclusion follows deductively, valid in modus tollens format.


A2: The necessary universe


Inspired and adapted from our fellow member N7. If the universe was created by God, it would have to be contingent on the existence of God. God did create the universe, by definition [2]. But recent evidence has come to light suggesting the universe is not contingent on anything, thus cannot have been caused.


The universe is possible, so I use the following axiom of modal axiom: <>A --> <>[]A, in other words, if the A is possible, then A is possible in all possible worlds.


God is necessary by definition [2]. So, if God is necessary, then all God’s actions are necessary [4]. God created the universe, thus God necessarily created the universe if he exists, which is contradictory because then the universe can’t be contingent on God. So, nothing “necessary” could have caused the universe.


Thus, God doesn’t exist.


References



[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] Rowe, William L. 1979. “The Problem of and Some Varieties of Atheism,” American Philosophical Quarterly 16: 335-41.

[4] http://plato.stanford.edu...

Debate Round No. 2
TechFreak

Pro

TechFreak forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by hldemi 1 year ago
hldemi
@tejretics

Makes more sense now. Though its a bit irritating to see so many lame and lazy votes over a simple FF while so many great debates with tons of arguments tend to get unvoted.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@hldemi -

I completely agree that voting for S&G is ridiculous in this scenario. But we can't expect the voting moderators to do so much -- they are just users who joined DDO. You're merely thrusting immense responsibility. Read the Moderation Policy -- if (1) a voter votes on a debate without changing the outcome, (2) it's somewhat justified, and (3) it's *unquestionable* as to who won and the vote is according to that, it won't be removed. "Unquestionable" can't be considered objective unless it's an FF debate or a concession. So such debates aren't moderated.
Posted by hldemi 1 year ago
hldemi
Thats just double standards. Not for the "who got better arguments" that one makes sense snce one side havent presented any. Better conduct also. But to vote for better spelling and grammar is just ridiculous. I mean he wrote only one word. One word. To vote for S & G here is identical as voting that forfeited side had better arguments.

This is the reason I reported those two votes. For S & G mainly.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@hldemi -

FF debates are moderated when you vote for the side that FF'd. Then the vote will be removed. As long as you vote down the forfeiter, that's fine.
Posted by hldemi 1 year ago
hldemi
@tejretics

If there is no point moderating them then I can win every forfeited debate (that I deliberately forfeited) by asking bunch of friends to vote for me and their votes cannot be removed since they are not moderated bcs of this rule. This is the classic example of bad rule. Laughable one.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@Fkkize:

Rofl...
Posted by Fkkize 1 year ago
Fkkize
Now I've seen everything.
Posted by Fkkize 1 year ago
Fkkize
Tejretics using the PoE?
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@hldemi -

There's no point in moderating FF debates.
Posted by hldemi 1 year ago
hldemi
"Debates where one side forfeits all of the rounds are not moderated."

Round 1 was not forfeited.

Also bad vote is a bad vote.. I m gonna vote from now on for side that forfeited and for a reason put "because I can", just to show how stupid this rule is.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by OliveJuice 1 year ago
OliveJuice
TechFreaktejreticsTied
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: Easy win.
Vote Placed by Commondebator 1 year ago
Commondebator
TechFreaktejreticsTied
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: Con destroyed pro's arguments
Vote Placed by gabep 1 year ago
gabep
TechFreaktejreticsTied
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: Con sweeps here. Pro forfeited, did not properly capitalize, did not make any arguments at all, and did not use sources.
Vote Placed by o0jeannie0o 1 year ago
o0jeannie0o
TechFreaktejreticsTied
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: Pro did not argue, Pro fortited
Vote Placed by Berend 1 year ago
Berend
TechFreaktejreticsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro FF'ed.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
TechFreaktejreticsTied
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: Pro forfeited several times. This is bad conduct. Pro literally made no arguments. So conduct and arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by Diqiucun_Cunmin 1 year ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
TechFreaktejreticsTied
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 as Pro FF'd. Arguments to Con as Pro made no attempt at arguing, and thus failed to fulfill the BOP, as stated by Con.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
TechFreaktejreticsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by evanjfarrar 1 year ago
evanjfarrar
TechFreaktejreticsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Tej presented arguments that were never responded to by Pro. Tej receives the conduct point, as Pro forfeited R2 and R3. With all arguments extended without response, and no argumentation by Pro, Tej also receives the 3 points for convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
TechFreaktejreticsTied
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: ff