It is Arrogance to Deny a God that you cannot Percieve
Debate Rounds (3)
It is arrogance and Not ignorant or logic to refute it.
You cannot stipulate that I did not do something, and avidly defend that claim by rejecting me until I prove it without acting Insolent. It is not Reason or principal to attack it as a means of reaching the truth.
That form of communicating with God will render God's response eternally mute. He doesn't associate with people who are no crude.
So the stand is, "If you cannot understand God, then you should not be opposed to him."+ "And your attempts to attack the aspects associated with the personality of him which are globally, historically and culturally known and believed in, Are in fact impudent attacks, void of substance. As we are all aware of the things you consider to be oxymorons, conflicts and contravercial - yet we understand him, and as you have yet to understand HIM, you shouldn't be barking."
I will be arguing that to deny an imperceptible, or not supported by proof, God is in fact a logical response.
My one and only point:
"Absence of proof is proof of absence"
This is not just a general rule of thumb, but can be proved statistically using the probability theorem. As I don't expect many viewers to be interested in mathematical equations, I will provide an visual explanation.
In this diagram above (which I hope is visible), the green circle represents the space of possibilities - think of it as a set of possible universes, and we don't know which one we're in. The orange circle represents the group of possibilities in which a hypothesis - let's call it H - is true. A red dot represents a universe in which we observe some piece of evidence - let's call it E. A blue dot represents a universe in which we do not observe this piece of evidence.
Looking at the diagram, it is clear that observing E is evidence in favor of H. This is because there are proportionally more instances of observing E inside of the orange circle, which represents H, than there are outside of it. In other words, if you see E then you know you're in one of the red circle universes, and because there are more red circles in H than outside of it, it's more likely that H is true. Conversely, not observing E means that you are in one of the blue circle universes, so it is more likely that you are outside of H. This means that failing to observe E is evidence against H, because it decreases the probability of H being true.
Thank you. I now expect rebuttal from Pro
He thinks that he is going to troll me and say that, "HE is actually lacking evidence or proof and not that he IS attacking something that he doesn't know about." which was the context of the discussion.
My opponent does not know anything about probability in this case. He does not know what the parameters of God are. How can he refute it.
get this troll off me.
I want a real contender to argue that, "You are argue against something you don't know about without being insolent."
enlighten me. Please someone invite me to a debate.
I win by default, my opponent is trying to change the pretenses of the debate, AND ignore the actual ones.
The full thesis, as stated by PRO in round 1, is as follows:
"If you are not able to understand or 'perceive' a God, or anything for that matter, it (sic) is arrogance and not (sic) ignorance(sic) or logic to refute it."
The simplified, less confusing thesis. Translated into human language:
"If something is not perceivable, it is arrogance, not logic, to refute it."
As something that cannot be understood or perceived excludes anything that is solidly backed by proof, we can assume that the following thesis remains true to the original version:
"If something is not provable, it is arrogance, not logic, to refute it."
According to PRO: my opponent wanted the contender to argue, "against something one (sic) doesn't know about without being insolent."(sic). This, of course is ENTIRELY MEANINGLESS, and was not stated in the original post. Therefore, this thesis is ruled out as invalid.
Furthermore, my opponent attempts to highlight me as "arrogant", "not knowing anything about probability," and "trolling". May all voters take this into consideration when casting their decisions.
Now to the actual rebuttal. If one can call it that.
This may be defined by some as a point of contention: "My opponent does not know anything about probability in this case. He does not know what the parameters of God are. How can he refute it."
I would like the audience to notice that I am not claiming to know the parameters of God, nor am I refuting them. I am simply saying that: because no evidence of God has been observed (making him 'not perceived'), we can statistically deduce that he doesn't exist.
As I have done this with logic, not with simple arrogance, the thesis is fulfilled completely towards the CON side.
"It is NOT arrogance but logic that allows me to refute anything that is not yet perceived."
I expect a decent rebuttal from PRO, not a simple critic nor forfeiture of debate. I did not accept this to watch him back out, but to debate a topic.
Thanks you, and apologies to any offended parties.
Not, If something is unperceivable.
I can percieve God. anyone is capable of it. I can understand him.
"So the stand is, "If you cannot understand God, then you should not be opposed to him."+ "And your attempts to attack the aspects associated with the personality of him which are globally, historically and culturally known and believed in, Are in fact impudent attacks, void of substance. - " that lack of substance being your lack of knowledge.
You seem to have joined a debate without Accepting it, and are cock blocking a formal debate regarding eh subject. and still have not presented an actual argument against my Clause.
First, my opponent has highlighted a few words that I have thought unnecessary to the meaning of the thesis. I would therefore, in order to fully satisfy my opponent, alter the simplified thesis to the following.
"If something is not percievable to one, it is arrogance, not logic, to refute it."
However, even this uselessly altered thesis points to my presumption, and PRO's efforts to change it prove futile.
I would also like to point out PRO's statement, containing "I can understand Him(God)"(sic), as grounds for inter-religious heresy. Here he clearly and definatively stating that his mind is capable of percieving God, who is regarded by a majority of major world religions as 'above the human mind' and 'impercievable'.
If my opponent has any respect for religion or God, he would do well to apoligize in the comments, unless of course he presents an established church that shares his views and sees humans as better than God, or present proof that he 'understands' God, and therefore reserves the right to oppose him.
I would also like to define 'percieve', as my opponent seems as if he would benifit.
Percieve - "become aware or conscious of (something); come to realize or understand."
Notice that one can only be aware or conscious of something if one has some form of proof for it. If one doesn't have any form of proof, even your own testimony, then one has not effectively percieved that thing.
My opponent has not provided any points. My opponent has not bothered to rebut my point. My opponent has spent his posts criticing his own debate, and calling me names.
I think this should ultimately decide who has actually put in effort for this debate, and who deserves to win it.
Thank you, to all viewers. And please cast your vote.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.