The Instigator
Microsuck
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

It is improbable that God exists.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Microsuck
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,960 times Debate No: 21150
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

Microsuck

Pro

Resolution

The existence of God is improtbable.

Clarification

I am not arguing for the falshood of any particular faith. Therefore, doctrines such as the trinity and incarnation are not important for this debate.

Definitions

Improbable: Less than 50%

God: For the purpose of this debate, God is doing to be defined broadly as the general attributes of the Judeo-Christian God. Therefore, doctrines such as the Trinity and the incarnation are irrelavent.

Rules
  1. Round 1 is acceptance only.
  2. Round 5 is just for closing statements.
  3. Do not accept this debate unless you are serious about this.
  4. Do not forfeit; if you wish to forfeit, don't let the time run out.
  5. If you are a troll, you will be blocked.


Please note: I have low tolerance towards idiocy.

Zaradi

Con

I accept on the stance that it could be possible for God to exist.

I accept your terms and resolutional definitions. And I assure you, I am not a troll.

I look forward to an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Microsuck

Pro

I would like to thank my partner for accepting this debate. Also, welcome to debate.org.


==Opening Arguments==

I. Divine hiddeness

A. Observations

There are many more Muslims than Christians than Saudi Arabia, many more Catholics in Ireland than Vietnam, and a very small ratio of Theists to pagans two and a half thousand years ago.

  1. If one were to be in Saudi Arabia, one has a greater chance of becomming Muslim than in America. [1]
  2. If one were to be in India, there would be a greater chance of being Hindu than in any other part of the world. [2]
  3. There are more Catholics in Ireland than in Vietnam. etc.
  4. In the ancient world, every nation had its own mythology. [3]

It rather seems strange that God will let an important matter such as faith hinge strongly on the circumstance of one's birth. For example, in Christian theology, unless you accept Jesus you die and go to hell. [4] This begs the question, why would a loving God as defined in the terms allow this to happen?

B. The argument formulated
  1. The demographics of Theism are better explained by Atheism than Theism.
  2. If the demographics of Theism are better explained by Atheism than Theism, then the demographics of Theism makes Atheism more plausible than Theism.
  3. Therefore, Atheism is more plausible than Theism.

Here is a map of this argument: [5]

One of the main arguments for orthodox Judaism is that G-d given a national revelation. However, this begs the question why he couldn't have given a world-wide revelation. This is indeed fishy.

II. God is incoherent

To make matters worse for God, he is incoherent. What do I mean by incoherence? I mean that God has contradictory attributes. Any being with contradictory attributes cannot exist.

A. The argument formulated.

(1) Any being with contradictory attributes cannot exist.
(2) God has contradictory attributes.
(C) Therefore, God cannot exist.

By premise 1, I do not mean that extraordinary objects cannot exist; rather, I mean that anything that is self-contradictory cannot exist.

A contradiction is defined as a logical incompatibility between two ore more propositions. [6]

B. Defending the argument

i) Free will-vs.-Omnipotence
  1. The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything.
  2. Personal beings have free will.
  3. Therefore, God has free will.
However, this causes a contradiction.
  1. In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during the period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential to chance your mind.
  2. A being that knows everything has no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices and hence lacks free will.
  3. Therefore, because God allegedly has free will and is all knowing, he cannot exist. [6]
Conclusion:

1) The demographics of Theism makes Atheism more plausible
2) Because God has contradictory attributes, he cannot exist.


Thank you. Good luck :-)


Notes and References


1. In Saudi Arabia, there is a 99%+ Muslim population. See <http://www.nationmaster.com......;

2. In India, there is a greater than 80% Hindu population. See <" target="blank">http://en.wikipedia.org......;

3. Indeed, these myths are in a variety of different shapes, sizes, and gods/goddesses. See http://www.ancient-mythology.com... good list.

4. In John 7, Jesus said "no man comes to the Father but through me."

5. Image courtesy of Thrasymachus from this debate <http://www.debate.org......;

6. The formulation of this argument is by Dan Barcker in the August 1997 edition of the Freethought Magazine. <http://ffrf.org......;
Zaradi

Con

First: As per the given resolution, the BOP is on the pro debater to provide absolute proof that God either doesn't exist, or is more unlikely than likely to exist. So if the debate is tied or there is muddled views on how the debate breaks down, vote con since the Pro is failing to clearly meet his BOP.

Also, I as the con debater need only sufficiently refute the pro debater's arguments for a few reasons:

1) To negate is defined as to deny the truth of. As the con debater, I am negating the given resolution. So as long as I deny the truth of the resolution, that is sufficient to earn the win.

2) Since the burden of proof is on the pro debater, if he fails to give you sufficient proof that affirms the resolution, then he fails to meet the inherent resolutional burden placed on him, which is enough to merit the con with the win.

For these reasons, as long as I am winning arguments on the pro side of the debate, I will be winning the round.
Second: one of the major crucial flaws in my opponent's case is that he fails to provide a system to measure the percent chance that god exists or doesn't exist. Since he specified to needing to meet under fifty percent chance in order to win the round, this is going to be one of his biggest flaws. Since he fails to provide you with a way to measure what the percent chance that god exists, you then have to weigh his case in either one of two ways:

1: Vote con right off the bat, since it is impossible for him to sufficiently affirm the resolution, given the specific percent number.

2: Or, if you do not agree with the concept of dropping a debater right off the bat, disregard the number and allow whoever is winning on blanket possibility or impossibility the win.

Third: Even if the pro debater is winning that it is more likely that god doesn't exist than does that still leaves a possibility that God still does exist. So in order to sufficiently disprove the con position, the pro debater must prove that it is impossible for God to exist. Otherwise, there is still a chance that god does exist, which is enough to merit a con vote. Since my opponent claims that he is not arguing for the falsehood of any particular faith, this is going to put in a double-bind because either a) He isn't arguing to falsify a religion, making the con case impossible to disprove, which at this point you would vote con or b) He is arguing to falsify religion, and must prove that the Judeo-Christian god does not exist beyond a shadow of a doubt. Since his case only functions as a method of casting doubt onto the existence of the Judeo-Christian god, his case would no longer be sufficient to vote pro off of, thus giving the voter another place to vote con.

My sole contention is that since it is impossible to confirm or deny the existence of God existing at all, it is possible that God exists. This is true for a few reasons:

1. We cannot physically see God. Physical proof is the ultimate proof because at that point I cannot deny the existence of it. I cannot deny the laptop I am currently typing on exists because it is physically in front of me. I can see it, I can touch it, I can even smell it and hear it. Heck, I could even taste it, if I so desired. It is physically there, beyond a shadow of a doubt. But we cannot experience God in this manner. I can't walk down the street to God's house and knock on the door and see Jesus open the door. It isn't possible. Because we cannot physically see god, it leaves speculation as to his existence. This doesn't disprove that God exists, only makes it possible that God exists. I cannot physically see, touch, hear, smell, or taste stars and planets that are trillions upon trillions upon trillions of light-years away from Earth. But it is possible that they exist.

2. There is no definitive account that God physically exists. Nobody is alive or has recorded evidence as to prove that God exists or definitively does not exist. Since this proof does not exist, we cannot clearly say if God definitively exists or does not exist.

For these reasons, Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 2
Microsuck

Pro

I. Introduction

Thank you for accepting this debate and your opening reply.

==Rebuttals==

First: As per the given resolution, the BOP is on the pro debater to provide absolute proof that God either doesn't exist, or is more unlikely than likely to exist. So if the debate is tied or there is muddled views on how the debate breaks down, vote con since the Pro is failing to clearly meet his BOP.

The first part is correct. The BOP is indeed on me to show proof that either: (1) God does not exist, or (2) God's existence is more unlikely than likely. During my opening arguments, I believe I have clearly shown that it is IMPOSSILBE for God to exist via contradictory attributes.

1) To negate is defined as to deny the truth of. As the con debater, I am negating the given resolution. So as long as I deny the truth of the resolution, that is sufficient to earn the win.

False. In DDO (and in formal debates) it is more than just denying the validity of the resolution--but you have to show that the resolution is false. That is the purpose of this debate. Likewise, I can keep affirming the resolution and win the debate--which is not enough.

2) Since the burden of proof is on the pro debater, if he fails to give you sufficient proof that affirms the resolution, then he fails to meet the inherent resolutional burden placed on him, which is enough to merit the con with the win.

This is correct. If I fail to provide proof of the above resolution, then you win the debate.

1: Vote con right off the bat, since it is impossible for him to sufficiently affirm the resolution, given the specific percent number.

False. The two arguments I have given show that it is impossible (0%) for G-d's existence; especially the contradictory attributes. Really, the resolution should say that it is "impossible" for a judeo-Christian type God to exist. That is a re-phrase of the resolution.

Third: Even if the pro debater is winning that it is more likely that god doesn't exist than does that still leaves a possibility that God still does exist. So in order to sufficiently disprove the con position, the pro debater must prove that it is impossible for God to exist

via contradictory attributes, it is impossible for a God that I have defined to exist. Remember: For the purpose of this debate, God is doing to be defined broadly as the general attributes of the Judeo-Christian God.

My partner rests on two sole contentions:

1) It is impossible to see God...

Even if this were true (which I can conceed) via the theological views of God, it is impossible for God to exist. For example, we cannot see a "square circle" yet we know they cannot exist because they are mutually contradictory.

2) There is no definitive account that God physically exists.

This is correct--which is where the Argument from non-believe and divine hiddeness proves the non-existence of God (see opening arguments).

To conclude: My partner has proven absolutely nothing and has not refuted any of my arguments. Because God's attributes are contradictory, God cannot exist. I urge an affirmative vote.
Zaradi

Con

I'll start with rebuking my opponent's case, then going to respond to the arguments against my own.

While my opponent makes seemingly valid points, I argue in contradiction of the points. I will reply to the arguments in the order the pro makes them, for added clarity.

First, let’s start where my opponent talks about the existence of other religions casting doubt on whether or not god exists. This arguments makes a few assumptions, assumptions that are fallacious in nature. He assumes that the existence of other gods or deities of other religions disproves the Judeo-Christian god. However, this is fallacious because he discounts the possibilities of two distinct possibilities: other religions being incorrect, and more than one religion being an existing religion. I will argue both of these points separately, in the order given.

a. My opponent fails to consider the possibility of, when stating these other religions, that they may be incorrect and their respective gods do not exist. But that’s like saying that just because I say that the sky is blue in America and purple in Australia, then the sky is probably not blue in America. Also, don’t grant my opponent access to the argument that God has not tried to show that he is the one true god. In many chapters spread across both the Old and New testament, there are recounts of God using his divine might to crush the opposition of those who believe in pagan gods or in other religions. And allow me access to using the bible as a reference because a) the topic is inherently a debate about religion and it is the most relevant source, b) it is the most predictable source, since I am inherently defending the possibility of the Christian god existing, c) without the bible as a source, I cannot even possibly defend my side since I would no longer have access to relevant topic literature, but also that d) my opponent also references the bible in his case, making it unfair to allow him to quote the bible and not allow me as well.

b. My opponent also fails to consider the possibility of other gods existing alongside the Judeo-Christian god, which in no way discounts its existence. While in the Bible it references that God is the One true God, this is in no way specific to the existence of other deities. All it is saying is that he is the strongest, the ultimate god. Which doesn’t say that other gods can’t exist.

Because of these fallacious assumptions, it is enough to discount the argument made here.

Next, let us talk about the B point of his argument, where he’s talking about the demographics of theism proving atheism true. There are numerous problems with this argument, or more specifically, his implication as to what it means. First, there’s no actual reason or proof as for why what he is claiming is even true. All he says is that since the demographics for theism are better explained by atheism (an already confusing statement in itself), then atheism trumps theism. But he provides no actual warrant for why this is true. He just says it is. He tries to provide some mental brain map about how the argument works, but all this does is restates his argument: it doesn’t provide any reason for why it is true. It just assumes that it is true and moves on. So as long as I say it isn’t true, you’ll be disregarding this argument in this round.

It isn’t true.

Now, let’s move down to the real meat of my opponent’s case, which is the second contention talking about the incoherency of God. My opponent starts off the entire section with a heavily fallacious statement that more or less says “If you contradict yourself, you don’t exist.”

Excuse my lapse in professionalism for a moment, but what the heck does this even mean? Does this mean if I disagree with myself I don’t exist anymore? That if I say one wrong thing that’s contradicting the truth that I drop off the face of the Earth? What this argument inevitably boils down to is if we lie, thus contradicting the truth, do we then exist? This argument is obviously incorrect in a multitude of ways, but I will just point out a few relevant examples in terms of our actual debate. If I were to say I am debating the pro side of the resolution, I would be contradicting the truth of the situation, since I am obviously debating the con side of the resolution, and then I would supposedly not exist. This is by the definition of contradiction imposed by the pro exactly what he says it is. Just for giggles, I am debating the pro side of the resolution.

Now that we have established how I don’t exist, let’s establish why my opponent doesn’t exist. The very impact of this argument is summarized a few lines lower when he says:

(1) Any Being with contradictory attributes cannot exist.
(2) God has contradictory attributes
(3) Therefore, God cannot exist.

Wait, did he just make the impact as to be God doesn’t exist? I thought, as per the resolutional analysis given in round one that the pro wasn’t debating to falsify a religion. If God were to not exist, then the Christian faith would be falsified. Wouldn’t this be a contradiction? Now neither of us exist. And this would also extend past the debate round to everyone who has ever told a single lie that contradicts the truth. So then anyone who has ever lied, even just once, in their life no longer exists.

Why does this now sound like Inception?

Moving past the Christopher Nolan jokes, I would also argue that God himself is not contradictory; rather the people who interpret what God says and records what they interpret contradict each other. The entirety of the Bible was recorded through, according to the Bible, visions and dreams granted to followers by God, telling them how things should be and how things were in the past. The people he spoke to scurried off like good little Christians and recorded the message as that individual interpreted it. They then all compile their writings and boom, we have a Bible. But, as is normal for imperfect human beings, people may misinterpret things, and thusly creating the contradictions we are so quick to blame on God.

Next, move onto the part of the argument where he talks about how God cannot have free will and be omnipotent at the same time, thus causing a contradiction and proving his non-existence. First off, I’ve already shown you how foolish the whole ‘if you contradict yourself, you don’t exist anymore’ line of thought is. But secondly, these two traits don’t conflict in the first place. God can have omnipotence to have a plan for you since birth, but as sinful humans who are in no way, shape, or form perfect, we often either stray from his plan or refuse to follow it at all. Thusly, God then needs to have free-will in order to adapt the plan to our current situation to always have a road we can take to get to heaven. So while in theory they may seem contradictory, the nature of our humanity prevents them from contradicting.

Now, let's go over and look at some of the things he said against my case.

Off of my first observation, where the burden of proof was placed on the pro debater, all he basically does say is that this is true. So in the case of a tie or an unclear with for either side, you'll be voting con.

Next, off of my first reason why I only need to respond to the pro's arguments in order to be merited a win, he says that I have to prove the resolution false. I can do this by only responding to the pro's arguments. By being pro, my opponent has to prove the resolution true. If I am disproving the affirmative, I am therefore disproving the resolution, or proving it false. So really his response is just irresponsive.

Since I'm running out of characters, I'll make the rest of my responses brief. Since he doesn't provide you with a sufficient metric to measure a percentage, it's impossible to affirm the resolution. He changes up the resolution from improbable to impossible mid-debate, which is highly unfair. Extend my first reason why God possibly exists. Look to the arguments against contradictions.

Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 3
Microsuck

Pro

I thank my partner for his reply. Unfortunately, my partner has made some fatal errors and feel that it may cost the debate.

==Rebuttals==

First, let’s start where my opponent talks about the existence of other religions casting doubt on whether or not god exists.

I did not claim this at all. I stated that the demographics of religion seem to show that religious belief is based upon the culture which you are brought up in--completely different from what you said that I said.

My opponent fails to consider the possibility of, when stating these other religions, that they may be incorrect and their respective gods do not exist.

False. I am arguing against a Judeo-Christian type God. It is indeed possible that other religions are incorrect. That begs the question why doesn't the judeo-xtian type God correct them.

I am inherently defending the possibility of the Christian god existing

False. You are defending the probability of a Judeo-Christian Type God existing.

My opponent also fails to consider the possibility of other gods existing alongside the Judeo-Christian god, which in no way discounts its existence. While in the Bible it references that God is the One true God, this is in no way specific to the existence of other deities. All it is saying is that he is the strongest, the ultimate god. Which doesn’t say that other gods can’t exist.

Unfortunately, this contradicts the Bible.

Deuteronomy 4:35, "Adonai, He is G-d; there is no other besides Him."

Deuteronomy 4:39, "Adonai, He is God in heaven above and on earth below; there is no other."

2 Samuel 7:22, "You are great, Adonai Elohim, for there is none like You and there is no God beside You."

Isaiah 45:21, "Is it not I, Adonai? And there is no other God beside Me..."

And many, many others. [1]

Next, let us talk about the B point of his argument, where he’s talking about the demographics of theism proving atheism true

false and out of context. I state that the demographics of theism show that a Judeo-Christian type God is improbable. In no way does this say that Atheism is true!

First, there’s no actual reason or proof as for why what he is claiming is even true.

If you had read the argument, I clearly shown that this is indeed the case. In the ancient world, every single culture had its own mythology.


“If you contradict yourself, you don’t exist.”

Way out of context! I said a being that has contradictory attributes cannot exist! For example, an invisible pink unicorn cannot exist because one cannot be invisible and pink at the same exact time!

I thought, as per the resolutional analysis given in round one that the pro wasn’t debating to falsify a religion.

Correct. I am not saying "Christianity is false", but religion as a whole is false.

If God were to not exist, then the Christian faith would be falsified. Wouldn’t this be a contradiction?

I show that a generic Judeo-Christian type God cannot exist. In now wise did I mention the Christian faith ANYWHERE! No, this is not a contradiction. 0%=Impossibility which also = improbability

My partner did bring up an interesting point in the omnipotence-vs.-free will argument; namely, the human nature argument. There is a flaw in this: In no wise does human nature affect God's nature. In fact, I argue that if God is omnipotent and all-knowing, how is it possible that we have already

In many chapters spread across both the Old and New testament, there are recounts of God using his divine might to crush the opposition of those who believe in pagan gods or in other religions.


This is where con made on of his fatal error, the Christian God claims that "He is not willing that any should perish, but all to come to repentance." [2] This begs the question why He didn't do that to all the pagan gods in America and throughout the world.

I only need to respond to the pro's arguments in order to be merited a win, he says that I have to prove the resolution false. I can do this by only responding to the pro's arguments.

Yes. And so far, you haven't proven ANYTHING!

Vote pro!

(Remember: Next round is only for summary and closing statements).

Reference

1. http://www.bible.ca...;
2. Second Peter 3:9


Zaradi

Con

I concede.

Normally, I'm against ever giving up. But I have to acknowledge you have me out-matched. Well played.
Debate Round No. 4
Microsuck

Pro

Thank you for your humble concession. As such, i irge a vote for pro. Please give my partner the conduct point for his willingness to concede.
Zaradi

Con

So I guess vote for pro.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tkubok 5 years ago
tkubok
"So in order to sufficiently disprove the con position, the pro debater must prove that it is impossible for God to exist. Otherwise, there is still a chance that god does exist"

"My sole contention is that since it is impossible to confirm or deny the existence of God existing at all, it is possible that God exists."

Improbable does not mean impossible. Something can be improbable AND possible. Either you do not understand what the word "Improbable" means, or you do, and are simply trying to twist the debate into a different one.

In any case, instead of actualy addressing Pros arguments in the second round, you basically spouted out this utter nonsense. Which to me, is both bad conduct and wasting a round.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Hey how did you post a picture onto the round argument part? I'm trying to figure out how for a different debate but I can't figure out how.
Posted by Microsuck 5 years ago
Microsuck
First, "First, let's start where my opponent talks about the existence of other religions casting doubt on whether or not god exists. " I did not claim this at all: my claim was that the silence of God casts doubt on God's existence. I've argued not that other religions cast doubt--but the demographics of religion and that religion is usually based on the culture in which one was born. Completely different.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
How so?
Posted by tkubok 5 years ago
tkubok
Zaradi, you essentially wasted an entire round by arguing something that pro did not claim >_>
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Holy crap. I almost ran out of characters. -.- That's a first.
Posted by Microsuck 5 years ago
Microsuck
Thank you. I await your arguments.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Well done. There are a few flaws here and there, as with any case, but for the most part it looks like a valid position.
Posted by Microsuck 5 years ago
Microsuck
Ok. May I have your thoughts on my opening arguments?
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Fair enough. Thank you for clarifying. I will have my response up momentarily.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
MicrosuckZaradiTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't refute any of Pro's arguments.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
MicrosuckZaradiTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: concession