The Instigator
Tweka
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Adam_Godzilla
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Is there such thing as fate?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Adam_Godzilla
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/29/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,836 times Debate No: 55655
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (50)
Votes (3)

 

Tweka

Pro

Fate shall be defined as 'something that unavoidably befalls a person'. [1]
I shall argue that fate does exist.

Round 1 is for acceptance
Round 2 is for me to make my case, and my opponent to provide rebuttals
Round 3 is for rebuttals.
Round 4 is for rebuttals and conclusions. Also, no completely new arguments in this round

Thank you, and I look forward to an enjoyable debate!

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Adam_Godzilla

Con

I accept. I assume you will hold the BOP. (i may not have sounded excited but I am! I look forward as well)
Debate Round No. 1
Tweka

Pro

Sorry, the burden of proof will be shared equally.

Introduction to fate:
Fate is not a biblical concept. Fate is a major premise of Islam and also being held in Hinduism. [1]
http://www.gotquestions.org...

I. Argument
P 1: If there is a beginning in life, there must be an ending.
P 2: Fate takes place in life.
C 1: Fate must be in the beginning and in the ending of something.
P 3: Life exists in this world.
C 2:So does fate.

Defending premise 1 :
Life is hard to define. So, I will be using life as a metaphor to a journey. In life there won't be an endless journey. Just like you walk a road, you may start from any place like your house, grocery shop, market and so on. In the end , perhaps you end up in your house again or somewhere else. If You are born, then you must end in somewhere like the coffins, heaven or even hell. If something are without life, they are more likely to be eternal. Why do living things exist in this world? It is mainly because of life. Without life, living things do not exist.

Defending premise 2 :
I will show that fate takes place in life. For example, when you are born you are being take care by someone who is either close to you or not related at all. If you are an orphan, you may be take care by workers in the orphanage. This maybe due to a myriad of reasons. For instance, your parents die in an accident or they dump you just because of some financial problems. The starting my be very different or same from others. Let's look at the ending of life. It is death, nothing else. You are fated to be born and death. You may live happily for a long time, but in the end our destinations must be the same. All of us deserve to die, none of us can have another breath of air. This might seem cruel to some people, but what to do? If you are not born that means fate is still occurring. You are fated not to be born and not to die.

Since, premise 1 and 2 are valid, my conclusion sounds reasonable.

Premise 3 :
Why am I saying that life exists? Look at your surrounding, there is a diversity of living things. Humans, animals and plants.
They are fated what they are going to become. You can't change at all. Even if you change something, that is also its fate.
You are fated to change it. Fate is inevitable in life.

Thank you.
Adam_Godzilla

Con

We have agreed in the comments before Pro's round 2 arguments that BOP will be ignored and that this will turn into a simple debate.

Therefore we both do not have any burden of proof.

Also the alternate definition of fate from the source Pro provides says that fate is destiny or that which is inevitable. - http://dictionary.reference.com...

Rebuttals:

First I will break down the entire structure of Pro's premise and conclusion. (btw, great job in making it)

The structure does not prove that fate exists in this reality.

P1 suggest that life has a beginning and ending. Then P2 says fate takes place in life. So far, I don't see any problems. Then C1 implies that fate must take place in the beginning and ending in life. However P3 and C2 is where things don't make much sense. P3 asserts that life exists and C2 says that fate also exists. How does the existence of life = existence of fate?

I will now rebut his defenses.

Premise 1:

Although I believe in life after death, I will accept this premise since as I have mentioned before that I have no problems with this.

Premise 2:

By the very definition of fate and the focus of this debate, fate obviously takes place in life. Again, no problems here.

Pro has so far provided obvious, common sense premises. Now let's see his conclusion.

"Fate must be in the beginning and in the ending of something."

Or it can be in the middle. Fate is destiny yes? So basically in other words, fate must be in the beginning and in the ending of life.

Again, this is obvious to me since the very definition of fate states that fate occurs in life. If we had a different definition of fate and where it can be applied, then the premise and conclusion doesn't hold but so far it does.

Here is where it gets tricky,

Premise 3:

This premise 3 is an entire new argument from the premise and conclusion Pro put forth. Pro attempts to use a modus tollens to prove that fate exists but his premises don't connect well enough to support his final conclusion. He says life exists and therefore fate does too. He says that because fate happens in the beginning and ending of something and that life has a beginning and ending, therefore fate is inherent in life. However this does not make any sense and is just Pro's own opinion that is not empirically true.

For example I could use his structure to say that sin exists in the world.

P1: There is a beginning and ending in life.

P2: Sin takes place in life.

C1: Sin must be in the beginning and ending of life.

P3: Life exists

C2: So does Sin.

This is confusing and does not prove the existence of sin at all. However Pro's premise 3 defense is actually an argument unto itself. He says,

""Why am I saying that life exists? Look at your surroundings, there is a diversity of living things. Humans, animals and plants.
They are fated what they are going to become. You can't change at all. Even if you change something, that is also its fate.
You are fated to change it. Fate is inevitable in life."


The compelling argument he makes here is that no matter what change occurs in life, it was predestined anyway. He implies that we cannot prove that there is such a thing as human free will and he argues that every decision, every event was pre-destined, fated. He says that fate is inevitable in life.

However, here is my counter argument.

Probability. What about probable events? There is always a chance that certain events will happen depending on their probability. Let's look at a mathematical example. We throw a dice and there is a one in six chance we will get 3. We throw it again and the odds of getting a 3 are still the same. Now say we use your argument to say that there are no odds of getting a three and that we got a three because it was destiny or fate. But in order to have that as a fate, it had to be preprogrammed. Sort of like there be needing a blueprint for the future in order for there to be fate. And on this blueprint, everything that will happen in the future has already been recorded on this blueprint. If this blueprint did not exist then how can we determine whether an event was caused by fate or was a just coincidence? Therefore this blueprint has to exist.

Now we can go on to my main counter argument. If this theoretical blueprint exists and it has all the information of all the events that will occur in the future, then it also must have a creator. Which means that god must exist in order for this blueprint to exist. Therefore Pro must prove the existence of a god who created this blueprint in order to support his claim of the existence of fate. However it is almost impossible to prove that god exists and therefore fate cannot be proven to exist.

Then again, Pro has no burden of proof which means that even if he cannot fully prove the existence of fate, he still hasn't lost and so I eagerly await his next arguments.

Thank you.

Debate Round No. 2
Tweka

Pro

Thank you Adam Godzilla for pointing out my incomplete argument. Fundamentally, my first argument is to prove that fate has existed in living and non-living things. My first argument is valid if I can prove the truth of my second argument. So, my second argument will be concentrating on the creator of fate.
Let"s get into my Premise 3"s argument

Conclusion 1:
Fate must be in the beginning and in the ending of something.
You are saying that my premise 1 and 2 do make sense. Then, the beginning and ending of something is what you call a cycle. P 1: If there is a beginning in life, there must be an ending. That premise 1 can be simplified into two words, "life cycle". P 2: Fate takes place in life. So, I can substitute "fate" into the word, life. It might be confusing, thus I decide to make it into a simple diagram. Fate is hardly being seen or even observed in the living and non-living things. The universal property of living things and non-living things is "fate". Lastly, my conclusion is shown and existed. It can be shortened into two words that "fate cycle".

Premise 3:
Life exists in this world.
What do I mean by that? I will get to the nitty-gritty of this premise. The definition of world according to Merriam webmaster is "a celestial body." [1]. Or, I can simply call it a planet. Everywhere, you can see that life exists in your surroundings. The surrounding is in your planet. Life is so obvious.

Conclusion 2:
Fate takes place in life.
Although fate can"t be seen with our naked eyes. But that doesn"t mean that fate can"t exist at all. Let"s make a simple example. Some human can see ghosts and the rest can"t see. It does not mean that ghosts do not exist. You say that ghosts do not exist because you have never or unable to see them. Then, you are wrong. Likewise, if you are to mean that what have you seen do exist but what you have never or can"t be seen does not exist. Then, you are denying the existence of fate. However, fate can"t be seen at all. Does that mean that there is no fate? Fate is being created by GOD. My second argument will partially or completely prove the presence of GOD. It is doubtless and you have to cast a reasonable amount of doubt against my second argument.

Sources :
[1]: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

II. My Second argument or also being partially borrowed from the ontological argument.
P 1: Anything greater than human does exist.
P 2: God is greater than human.
C 1: God exists.
P 3: God creates or even inserts fate in every human.
P 4: Each fate will control every human.
C 2: Fate exists because of something greater is controlling you.

Defending my premise 1:
Is animal greater than human in some certain form? Yes. Let"s make a simple comparison with human and birds in the reality. The very first thinking that comes into your mind is that bird can fly but human can"t. This means that bird is greater than human in the flying form. That shows the great existence of birds. You may say that with the help of aeroplanes, rockets and so on human can also fly what. But that is with the assistance of transports.

Defending premise 2:
God is better than human and human is not God. Why so? God is omnipotent, omniscient every perfection than human. God has all knowledge that you don"t have. It might seem too general but I will try to explain it with my best effort of all time. If you do say that human creates so-called new knowledge, but if the history of the world is repeating of all time, then the ending, process and starting will be the same. Thus, God has the knowledge of this universe because HE has created it. Thus, the existence of GOD is perfection. Hence, GOD exists.

Defining Premise 3:
I believe that all of you have watched drama before right? What is drama? Drama is defined as "a piece of writing that tells a story and is performed on a stage". [1] No matter what drama you watched, it is already written by someone else. So, the flow of drama must follow the script. Script in this case is something similar to fate. Or, what you have mentioned earlier before some sort like a blueprint. In this case, who creates the blueprint? The answer will be the human. Who creates the human of writing this kind of script, the definite answer is GOD.

Sources:
[1]: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Defending premise 4:
Fate as shown above is something like script. The script will be controlling the progress of the drama. Just like fate.

Attacking opponent"s PROBABILITY:
As I said before this, it is fate. The probability does not seem to work much in human but fate does. For example, I bought a box of oranges from the market. How are you going to calculate the probability of rotten oranges? If you are saying that I am going to look at those trees which produce oranges. I will look at the condition of these trees living in prior to calculate the rotten oranges. That does not have much sense. But can you really calculate it?
PROBABILITY is something like chances and it is well-known in Mathematics. But fate is greater than PROBABILITY. Probability is the possible outcome of something. Fate is the impossible and possible happenings of something. For example, I jump from the 101 tower of Taipei. Am I going to die? What if I accidentally enter a wormhole and travel to other universe or even saved by someone? Yes, you calculate the PROBABILITY of them. But fate is the destiny of something. Fate is perfectly accurate compared to PROBABILITY.

At here, I rest my case. Thank you.
Adam_Godzilla

Con

For easy referencing, here are my opponent's arguments.

P 1: Anything greater than human does exist.
P 2: God is greater than human.
C 1: God exists.
P 3: God creates or even inserts fate in every human.
P 4: Each fate will control every human.
C 2: Fate exists because of something greater is controlling you.

I will now rebut his defenses.

Premise 1:
This logic also does not make sense. Claiming that anything greater than human exists is claiming that everything greater than human exists. Therefore God exists because P1 says anything or everything greater than humans exist. However, this is once again Pro's own opinion with a logic that just does not support the conclusion. Again, I could say evil flying gigantic robots exist. Why? Because anything greater than humans exist. So we see that the logic does not hold up and Pro's examples such as the animals are derived from actual existing things. These things such as birds don't exist because they are greater than humans, they exist because they do. We don't see Earth sized birds in the sky because we simply haven't seen one yet, even when they are greater than humans.

Premise 2:
By the very definition of God or one who has created everything. Then yes, obviously, God is greater than humans.

Premise 3:
God creates or even inserts fate in every human.
Pro's argument here again is that fate is inherent life. And that fate is recorded in a blueprint essentially made by God.

Premise 4:
Yes because fate is destiny and destiny is inevitable. Again Pro is reiterating the same definition in different ways.

C2:
The final conclusion does not hold up even when P3 and P3 make sense because P1, P2 and C1 do not prove the existence of god.

Pro's attack on Probability:
It's not that fate is more accurate than probability, which Pro asserts. It's that fate is inevitable, which means certain events will happen regardless of probability. If I jump off a roof and survive the fall, that was fate. However, the existence of such a thing depends on the existence of God. And Pro has not made a viable argument to support the existence of god. We can't prove fate exists but we can still depend on probability. There will be a high probability you will die when you fall from a building as we can know from previous records of suicide. Probability is how we measure which events will likely play out in the future but it is not set. It is however reliable in mathematics, since we can predict the planetary orbits and star positions in the sky. Fate may exist and it may influence every choice we make but Pro has not made a convincing argument to support the existence of fate. His main argument that anything greater than human exists does not verify the existence of God as I have shown before.

In the end, Pro's arguments do not hold up his resolution that fate exists.

I now rest my case. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
Tweka

Pro

Maybe you have forgotten.
My opponent is trying to ignore my first argument of existence of fate in life. Yet, you are saying that I have not given any proof that fate exists. Let's take a look at my first argument. My first argument already proves that fate exists in life. Once you are fated to be born, then you are fated to die. This evidence already proof that fate does exist. If you are saying that there is no fate, they why you will die or you are born. On the other hand, my second argument is to show that the reason why fate has existed in life. It is due to the existence of GOD. However, you also have not proved that there is no GOD.

II. Argument

Premise 1: Anything greater than human does exist.
Again, this is my own opinion and it does make sense. I am saying that anything greater than human does exist. Anything is also known as "any other thing". Great means that something is unusual or considerable in degree, power, intensity, etc. And, exist means "to continue to be or live." Greater means more powerful and so on. Let me put it in this way, if anything greater than human, then it does exist. It might seem illogical and some kind of fantasy. Since I have defined the statement, now I will provide you with some clearer and deeper explanations regarding this statement. I think my opponent has misunderstood this. You are saying evil flying gigantic robots do exist but we have not seen it yet. Yep, it can exist in a lot of form. I assume that you are referring it in the case of art. Existence of something is depending on certain things regardless of its form. If I am lucky enough, I can draw the evil flying gigantic robots. Bear in mind that, it will not be as nice as you think. And, don't blame because I am very bad at drawing. As an example, I exist because of my parents. Fate exists because of GOD. My parents have created or made me. Later, fate exists because of the creation GOD. "We don't see Earth sized birds in the sky because we simply haven't seen one yet." Yes, in the computer world or even in my imagination, I can create this Earth-sized bird. But, you can't expect it is completely same as what you have predicted or you think. Remember, the thinking of human can be varying. It is because of souls. Just like fate you expect every fate in human is the same or every soul of human is the same. Look carefully, they share one universal property that is fate. Fate can exist in many form, remember that.

P 2: God is greater than human.
It is not necessary for me to define or defend this premise. Since we have come to an agreement in this premise.

P 3: God creates or even inserts fate in every human.
I exist because of my parents. But, why do I exist at the right time, perfect place and so on? It is fate, my parents may give birth to any baby, but fate has chosen me X soul to exist. Why there is fate in me? It is because of GOD who has put it in me. Then, can you answer my very simple question that is "Why am I born at the X time in the Y place?" Surely, the answer will be fate. But who creates fate, the answer is GOD. Why does GOD exist? Well we will go to your counter argument that is PROBABILITY.
If you are saying that there is no GOD, then I would argue that there is GOD. So, the probability of GOD"s existence is ". If GOD does not exist, then why there is human? If future does not exist, then why there is past? If director does not exist, why there is drama? If this world does not exist, why there is another world? Take note, if there is no numbers, and then there will be no infinity. Because numbers are parts of infinity.

Premise 4:
Needless to say, it is right.

Conclusion:
God does exist. So there will be fate. In conclusion, there must be a creator. Past influences future. Director affects drama. God creates fate and lastly fate influences human. Again, if you are saying that there is no fate. Then, why a human must live and die?
Once again, I thank my opponent and wish him a blissful day for debating with me. I would like to urge you to vote Pro.
As agreed, no brand new argument but only rebuttals.
Adam_Godzilla

Con

I see. Pro's real argument was that fate exists because we will all die one day. However as I have already rebutted, in order for us to classify death or such incidents as fate, they have to events that are inevitable, events that have been recorded and set to take place at a specific time. In other words, I have already said that in order to have fate, there needs to be a script/blueprint with the records of the events. Therefore, God must exist to create this record. Pro says I have not disproved the existence of god, but he himself has not given viable proof or even arguments to support the existence of a god. I have already given probability as an alternative reason to the events that happen in our life and our world.

I will now give my final rebuttals:

II. Argument

Premise 1 - anything greater than god does exist:

Here my opponent argues that things that are greater than humans exist because they can exist in different forms. He says my example evil flying gigantic monsters may not exist literally but can exist in art forms, drawings, pictures. Then he claims that fate exists in many forms.

However let us look back at Pro's definition of fate; 'something that unavoidably befalls a person'.

Which just means destiny. And now Pro says destiny comes in many forms. I say yes it does because there are a lot of inevitable things in life. But so what? This does not correlate at all to the argument, 'anything greater than human exists;. Pro's argument that fate exists in many forms is irrelevant to his point and it is also confusing.

And his rebuttal that things greater than humans can exist in many forms is also confusing. Yes I can draw a flying spaghetti monster on paper and show it off to people, but the flaw here is that it will only be a drawing, not something greater than humans. A scribble on an A4 sized paper is not 'more powerful' than an adult sized human. It is just a piece of paper, an idea, not a physical manifestation.

And this applies to God as well. A picture of god is not god. An idea of a god is not the literal manifestation of god. Saying that god exists and using a piece of drawing to prove it is not proof at all. It is only the person's imagination. Not the LITERAL representation of God. Flying spaghetti monster IDEAS may exist. But the actual creatures cannot be proven to exist. Therefore God cannot be proven to exist and so fate/destiny/the blueprint of life cannot be proven to exist.

P2:
Agreed

P3:
Just because you death is inevitable, doesn't mean it's timing is just. Pro has no strong supporting argument to say that you will die not a second before you are supposed to and not a second later either. In his defense of the existence of God, he argues that the world wouldn't exist if there was no god. But I will say that the world can exist without a supreme creator due to probabilistic atomic collisions in the universe that form our complex and expansive world. But then again that is just my opinion and Pro's argument is the same. On the subject of the existence of God, it is impossible to disprove or prove it as a fact. Therefore I and Con are on stalemates here.

Premise 4:
By it's definition, why would it not?

Pro's Conclusion:
It is perhaps inevitable that humans die at one point in their lives. But this is not due to fate but it based on the probability of their cells aging and dying. We all have a choice in life. I could choose to do one thing or the other. My choices are not predestined, events with a high probability might happen. In order to prove the existence of fate, Pro has to prove the existence of God. But his arguments do not succeed in doing this due to the problems in Premise 1 and therefore do not come to the conclusion that god exists.

I thank my opponent for the wonderful discussion. And I thank the readers for reading this debate. If you have been skimming, please go back to the top.

Thank you and good night,

Adam_Godzilla
Debate Round No. 4
50 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tweka 3 years ago
Tweka
X can be assumed as God but Y shall be the atomic collision.
Posted by Adam_Godzilla 3 years ago
Adam_Godzilla
@Tweka

But why assume X = God and Y = human ? Why can't this be the other way around?
Posted by Adam_Godzilla 3 years ago
Adam_Godzilla
Please keep your disputes in your private messages. Thnks.
Posted by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
Stop spamming this debate everywhere, Tweka, you d*ckhead.
Posted by flashruler 3 years ago
flashruler
it says i cant because i didnt complete three debates yet
Posted by Tweka 3 years ago
Tweka
why
Posted by flashruler 3 years ago
flashruler
goddamnit i cant vote
Posted by Tweka 3 years ago
Tweka
Finally the debate is done. And, there probabilistic of atoms collision may not happen without God's existence. For example, I will not be born without my parents.
P 1: If X, then Y.
P 2: X does not exist.
C :Y will not exist.
Posted by Adam_Godzilla 3 years ago
Adam_Godzilla
agreed
Posted by Tweka 3 years ago
Tweka
Forget about all the comments just focus on your last round to rebut my argument. Then, let others judge the soundness of my arguments and yours through the voting.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Envisage 3 years ago
Envisage
TwekaAdam_GodzillaTied
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: Conduct for liberally spamming this debate everywhere. Not cool.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
TwekaAdam_GodzillaTied
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: Pro is spamming this debate on other debates. I will look at arguments and judge those independently later.
Vote Placed by Charliecdubs 3 years ago
Charliecdubs
TwekaAdam_GodzillaTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate and an interesting topic but Con was the most convincing to me