The Instigator
GoOrDin
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
mfigurski80
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

It is Arrogance to Deny a God that you cannot Percieve

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/1/2016 Category: News
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 433 times Debate No: 85884
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

GoOrDin

Pro

If you are not able to understand or "perceive" a God, or anything for that matter,
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."
mfigurski80

Con

I accept, and wish my opponent the best of luck.

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.

http://rationalwiki.org...

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
Debate Round No. 1
GoOrDin

Pro

My opponent did not Actually accept the debate.

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.

Arrogance.

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.
mfigurski80

Con

I have actually accepted this debate, yet I can see it is quickly turning into a critic.

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.
Debate Round No. 2
GoOrDin

Pro

If YOU cannot perceive or understand something, then it is arrogant to refute it.

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.
mfigurski80

Con

This debate has turned into a critic, despite my efforts and presentation of points. But I guess I shall continue and prove that I was right in my assumption of the thesis, and that it was my opponent who veered off topic.

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.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
You cannot say that something is Unperceivable because you cannot perceive it.
You prove something is unperceivable is you cannot perceive it.
You cannot even suggest such a claim if you do not know how to perceive it.

And it is arrogance to approach the topic offensively.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: TheBunnyAssassin// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Nope no prorof

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Does not explain conduct, S&G or arguments. (2) A lack of "prorof" doesn"t justify sources by itself.
************************************************************************
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
My opponent altered the thesis and did not accept the premise of the debate. His actions are Technically, trolling. End of case.
Posted by mfigurski80 1 year ago
mfigurski80
Just because my icon is a jester doesn't mean I troll on debates. Please refrain from pushing similar groundless accusations towards my person.
Thank you.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
Me, round two ~""You are argue against something you don't know about without being insolent."
correction: "You can't argue against something you don't know about without being insolent."
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
yes. u can ask fro clarification. but u shoulda have done that first**
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
the debate was not about, "an imperceptible, or not supported by proof, "

it was that, "people who are ignorant of the perceptible and supported proofs should shut up. They don't even know what they are talking about."
Posted by mfigurski80 1 year ago
mfigurski80
I do not wish to rebuke religion, and I do not much understand your writing style. May I occasionally ask for clarification in the comments?

Thanks for opening this debate.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
No religion dictates you must go to church**

You should stand by the social sciences of Culture and history which have given us Good moral codes and support religion, and in your ignorance simply state, "I am not there yet." as your only rebuke of religion.
Then you can share in prosperity Not being an insolent brat, selfish, indulgent crap-crapper, and simply Lavish in the fruits of good will, effort, The abundant foods and pleasures of life, and not be a prick.

Cheers to agnostics. I never insulted you. Because you do not stand by, defend, partake in or advocate lack of morality the way AtheiSM does.
No votes have been placed for this debate.