The Instigator
Imperfiect
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Envisage
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

It is impossible for God to not exist!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Envisage
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/30/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,365 times Debate No: 64239
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (21)
Votes (3)

 

Imperfiect

Pro

How can god not exist? It is like if you say that a baker ceases to do baking business!

God is the wheeler dealer of existence, no way would he have succeeded in this trade if he didn't poof himself into existence!

Think for 2 second how can Jesus walk on the water if God didn't make it to happen?

How can we all be arguing over something if it doesn't exist?

This is the truth.

First round for arguments but if you are a lazy godless heathen you are welcome to just accept.
Envisage

Con

I accept this debate.

I assume this debate will utilize some modal logic, and as such I will define a few symbols:

<> = Possible
[N] = Necessary
--> = Then
~ = Not
v = Disjunctive (OR)
^ = Conjunctive (AND)
G = God exists
I may define some more symbols later, but these should en sufficient for now. To phrase the resolution in modal logic:

"It is impossible for God to not exist"
~<>~G

This is logically equivilent to the following statement via Modal Logic axioms 1 & 2 (1)

"Necessarily God exists"
[N]G

Ergo, Pro needs to demonstrate either of these statements to be true, on the contrary, I need to demonstrate that God possibly doesn't exist, or God doesn't necessarily exist to win.

Best of luck.

References:

1. http://plato.stanford.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
Imperfiect

Pro

Who is Eminem comparing himself to in this rap? What makes being a rap God good to an atheist audience? That's right he's comparing himself to the God that we all wish we were and must cower before for this omnipotent narcissist runs reality and there's no doubt about it:

Okay! What does that nonsense poopy nishnash mean?

^ yours Con! (it is a conjunctive so it can't lose me conduct mark)
v with the atheists!

Gv~ is this debate. It doesn't matter if you use symbols or not okay fancy boy smartypants! Okie dokie.

Time to activate my inner soul chakra that God has blessed me with to defeat this opponent once and for all!

God made everything, so if God doesn't exist then you don't exist! If you don't exist, you can't read this debate!

If there is no god, then what made water turn into wine? Who was it that Muhammad spoke with? What is it that fuels all the demigod forms of Hinduism? Truly we see that god is needed for all these events.

Do you know what happens if you pray to God to not exist? He removes his existence but simultaneously recreates himself because he is a thing and thus apart of everything and he created everything so thus he is impossible to stop existing.

It's like in a game of SIMS, we all know that SIMS can't run around the screen if EA games (the God of SIMS) didn't exist![http://www.thesims.com...] Same way we can't exist if God wasn't there since we are his creation.

God is also the basis by which we judge anything, without God we can't strive to make anything better. Inevitably all that isn't god is bound to be imperfect, since God is the benchmark of perfection but if God never existed we'd never know to strive for anything whatsoever. We strive to debate this and win purely because we want to maintain a win record closer to perfection (meaning infinite wins). We all know to be God is impossible for mere mortals and limited systems but regardless without God there's absolutely nothing to strive for and the entire concept of improvement and adapting would be obsolete. Con would have no reason to win this unless he was trying to be more like God than me.

God is not just a human invention, this is a common misunderstanding. Regardless of this, if we invented God then you are saying God exists since we invented him. If God doesn't exist then we didn't invent him and you just created a paradox. Checkmate atheists!

Analyze this: Is a creation of the mind existing or not? There is no such thing a an analogous measure of the degree to which something exists, it's a digital variable that either is or is not. God is real at least as a concept and if a concept exists, it can't simultaneously not exist as this would make all logic fall apart and mean that we may as well say pro=con and this debate is a tie.

Now, what is left to argue? Oh yes, these sneaky atheists always have tricks up their sleeves... The 'burden of proof' argument.

Let's just stop you there for one moment. You call use the imbeciles for believing in God without concrete proof that he exists, but I tell you this you are saying it is even possible for God to not exist without any proof that a reality without a creator of some kind is even possible to begin with. Atheists always beg the question[http://begthequestion.info...] when they say that God doesn't exist because he hasn't been proven to the people existing in a reality that was never created. That's just so ridiculous I almost coughed up my black market pork while I was having my sin-fest before my prayer rave.

I mean seriously think about it for one second (or longer if you have an attention span greater than most atheists); how could you say that the creator of a creation doesn't exist because the creation has people stupid enough to think that it's possible for the creation to have no creator? You cannot. The burden of proof is actually on atheists to prove that a reality of no creation is possible in the first place.
Envisage

Con

Joy.. I would like to ask voters to forgive me if they have seen my previous debates, as I am going to recycle one of my old arguments.

A priori stance of non-existence

This argument is a stronger version of Occam"s Razor and "Burden of Proof", and gives ground to a higher probability of a proposed entity X not-existing a priori. This is also a formal placing of the burden of proof onto the person arguing for the existence of God, as it at the very least establishes a formal possibility of God's non-existance. This is before we assess the evidence and positive arguments in favour of God"s existence, which I argue have been unsatisfactory in mitigating this argument.[1]

A: A priori, it is more likely that God exists than it doesn"t (assumption)
P1. If A is true, then all entities are more likely to exist then not (a1, a2, a3" etc)
P2. a1 is mutually exclusive to a2, a3... etc.
P3. a2 is mutually exclusive to a1, a3... etc.
... Ad infinitum
C. A entails a contradiction (2 & 3"ad infinitum), therefore A is false

This can be applied to each and every one of God"s attributes (as defined), such as Omnipotence, Omniscience, etc. It is impossible for there to exist more than one omnipotent being for instance, so any being defined as "omnipotent" with different attributes (such as only finitely intelligent, or completely unintelligent, non-conscious, not the creator etc) would be impossible, yet all these putative entities exists as plugs for 2&3.

Pro can contest P1, but then our justification for assuming God more likely to exist a priori falls, and in either case a standalone argument can be made.

P1. All entities are more likely to exist then not a priori (a1, a2, a3" etc)
P2. If a1, then not a2
P3. a1 is more likely to exist than not (from p1)
P4. a2 is more likely to exist than not (from p1)
C. P1 entails a contradiction (2 & 3"ad infinitum), therefore P1 is false

The only premise that can be objected to here to maintain a high a priori likelihood of something"s existence is P2, but this would require Pro to reject the notion of contradictory properties, which is prima facie absurd. Hence the conclusion follows that only a case of special pleading would allow God to escape this argument. The most reasonable stance is to accept the non-existence of God.

Possible Worlds Without God

For me to refute the notion 'It is impossible for god to not exist' I can simply propose a logically consistent world in which God plays no role. If such a world is possible, then it is objectively possible that god exists, because for it to be impossible that God exists it *necessarily* entails God exists in every metaphysically possible world.

Such examples have been proposed by Sean Carrol, with simple mathematically self-contained universes with a single particle in them. While they are certainly not *our* world! they are still a logically consistent possible world! and if God necessarily exists, then he must exist in all logically and metaohysically possible worlds. However we have examples of worlds without God, which is a contradiction.[1]

Conclusion:

I do hope my opponent takes this debate more seriously, I will offer rebuttals next round.

References:

1. http://youtu.be...
Debate Round No. 2
Imperfiect

Pro

Alright I will try to consider the possibility that God could not exist...

It seems that Con is jealosu that God knows everything and also can do anything and is saying it's a contradiction when it isn't.

I will ignore the video because unless you write the video's transcript adn use that as your argument I won't consider it.

Thank you.

All my arguments are irrefutable I am so proud that Con is scared to address them.
Envisage

Con

By conceding that God metaohysically possibly does not exist, Pro concedes the debate (since that directly contradicts the resolution).

Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
Imperfiect

Pro

Alright, I think that I made very clear that I am going to try to imagine that it could be possible for God to not exist. I tried... And I failed because there is simply no way to fathom such a reality since a creator is required no matter what. Please do not try to straw man me, you incompetent atheistic creation of God.

I read, at the end of Round 2 that Con said "I will offer rebuttals next round"... Yet all of my hard work into my Round 2's arguments has either been ignored by him or addressed and deemed unworthy of rebutting.

I explained why the syllogisms only prove how envious Pro is of god being able to simultaneously know all and do all, not anything else.

My round 2 arguments have gone unchallenged and I will give my opponent one last chance to raise rebuttals because round 5 is no new points whatsoever as that is unfair conduct since I cannot reply to it.

I will wait until round 5 to recap this debate. the video Con posted in round 2 should be ignored unless they type it out. It is a 53-54 minute long speech that would never fit in this character limit. Thus I call it illegal argumentation and Con is obligated to type it out to prove me wrong.
Envisage

Con

Thanks..... Pro.

The resolution is "It is impossible for God to not exist", and to be quite frank, Pro hasn't shown how any of his points leads to this conclusion.

Even if we assume that water was once turned into wine, or Muhummad actually spoke to someone celestial, why is the first hypothesis God? Let alone that it leads to the conclusion that God *necessarily* exists. Given the lack of intellectual rigor in the evidence Pro had given, it would be just as speculative to just argue the water was actually grape juice, which was brewed into wine. We have no way of knowing what was genuinely the case.

There is not much left for me to address given that the remainder of Pro's points either don't address the resolution, or beg the question (God exists because he exists). Hence we can reject Pro's round out of hand.

He has yet to address my points, either.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
Envisage

Con



Vote Con...
Debate Round No. 5
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 18Karl 2 years ago
18Karl
please voters, vote properly
Posted by Thestudentpolitician 2 years ago
Thestudentpolitician
Just to let you know it is impossible to argue with an atheist by bringing up points from the Bible. If they didn't bebelieve before why would they after you?
Posted by SebUK 2 years ago
SebUK
check mate atheist
Posted by Imperfiect 2 years ago
Imperfiect
I have proven beyond any doubt that the holy father is furreal
Posted by DJ-Gold 2 years ago
DJ-Gold
And actually, due to you being the Instigator, the burden of proof is on you.
Posted by DJ-Gold 2 years ago
DJ-Gold
If you say "I am a <noun> God" then you may not be comparing yourself to the entity "God"but to the IDEA of the entity "God". Due to the ambiguity this causes, your argument is invalid. Also, you have provided no proof that the universe is a "creation", and therefor this argument is unwarranted. Just two of MANY points i could have rebutted, but i'm sure that Con will pick up on the rest soon enough.
Posted by SebUK 2 years ago
SebUK
for Mountain dew
Posted by SebUK 2 years ago
SebUK
Obey the Seb UK
Posted by Imperfiect 2 years ago
Imperfiect
Idk because i never debated with you to lose in the first place.
Posted by SebUK 2 years ago
SebUK
*likes*
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
ImperfiectEnvisageTied
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 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 has rebutted Pro's case.
Vote Placed by Ramos-7 2 years ago
Ramos-7
ImperfiectEnvisageTied
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: That was a stupid discussion, people like Imperfiect (wtf is that name supposed to mean, an attempt to spell "imperfect" but failed?) are the reason why we Theists are laughed at and mocked, they strawman arguments, they do not address the argument and post irrelevant information and cannot scientifically/philosophically explain God's existence. There were fallacious arguments made by pro that ruined his chances of actually winning the debate, even if we both believe in God, he acted foolish to mention stories without evidence of them happening as if we could all travel in time to view these events today. I shall succeed where Imperfiect failed, lest I die before I get my chance to do so, I shall be the man to bring about a renaissance of Theism then after doing so, arguing the case for Christianity and spreading the truth that 70 - 90% of people do not understand & that is that Christianity & modern science can reconcile and be used to explain God's existence.
Vote Placed by 18Karl 2 years ago
18Karl
ImperfiectEnvisageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments: Con's argument on a priori stance destroyed much of pro's subjectivity arguments, and pro simply surrendered the debate in his round 4. Con used sources. S and G tied.