The Instigator
Naoi
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
MasterKage
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

It is improper to assume the state of existence of God.

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...
Naoi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/24/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,011 times Debate No: 19470
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

Naoi

Pro

First off, it is not my purpose to offend anyone or their beliefs.

In the theological debates I have read on DDO so far, when the two participants have drastically differing beliefs the common pattern seems to be for one participant’s beliefs to be assumed as true and the other participant receives the BOP. Unless this is the explicit topic of debate (e.g. “God exists”), it would make more sense for conflicting beliefs to be considered equally likely until a claim is made and then for the one making the initial assertion to accept the BOP.
An abstract generalization is quite different from a concrete application, however. So, I issue the following (hopefully contentious) challenge!

I am an atheist. I completely deny the existence of any god, supernatural phenomena, spirits, souls, an afterlife, ect.

Therefore, I challenge my opponent to show why you should not have to accept the BOP for any claim or assertion based on any topic where our beliefs differ—the choice of the specific example for this debate I leave entirely to you. (This is, of course, assuming such was not the explicit topic for debate in the initial challenge.)

To state it another way: Con is claiming I (Pro) should accept X in a debate when our beliefs differ on X, and further that I (Pro) should also accept the BOP that X is not so.

Conversely, I (Pro) am claiming that simply denying X is a sufficient counter until Con satisfies the BOP that X is in fact so.

I’m expecting X to be some topic of a theological nature (e.g. God exists, humans have a soul, there is an afterlife, etc.), although I’m happy to entertain other topics. I would prefer the topic be something we both actually do disagree on and not something we both view as a simple fact (i.e. I don’t want to have to argue against accepting gravity or something). Also, X naturally must be something with a clear division between competing points (e.g. yes or no, true or false, but not teal is greenish).

If you need any clarification or would like any wording changed leave a comment.

Debate rules: 3 rounds, 5,000 character max, 72 hours time limit

Yes, it can be a bleak belief system at times, but then how else would I maintain my dark, sarcastic outlook? I kid, of course. Let’s have fun!
MasterKage

Con

I am an atheist. I completely deny the existence of any god, supernatural phenomena, spirits, souls, an afterlife, ect."

Since my opponent is arguing for it, it would only make since to make the topic God Does not exist.

God does not exist.

I will input some definitions that will allow for further understanding of this debate.
Please note, all my definitions will be cited from the Merriam Webster online dictionary.

The definition of God is the being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe.
The definition of exist is that of to have real being whether material or spiritual.

The universe exists so we must assume that God has created it.

The universe does indeed exist so we must assume and believe that God has created it.
If the existence of God was false then there would be no universe, furthermore without God's existence there would be no concept of time or space.
Clearly the Earth has a concept of time as the sun does not appear in the same place forever, therefore we must assume the entire universe has the concept of time.

We, also, must assume that the Earth has a material concept of space as any one person can not stand in the exact position I am standing in, so we, again, must believe that the entire universe has the concept of space.

Without God's actions, we would have no concept of time or space nor would there be a universe.

That is all, for now.
Debate Round No. 1
Naoi

Pro

Con, you have made things more difficult for yourself than required. In this debate you need not actually prove the existence of God, but merely show why you should not be required to.

You and I are speaking of a hypothetical debate in which you assert God exists. I, having conflicting beliefs, do not recognize this as a truth. Why, then, should you not bear the BOP for this specific assertion?

I understand this is a point which you feel very strongly about, and I mean no disrespect. But if I were to state that Abortion is not murder, a topic our profiles imply we would disagree on, you would naturally expect me to bear the BOP as to why that is so. The same if you declare Flag Burning is wrong. I would expect you to bear the BOP.

Why, then, should the claim “God exists” be treated differently? Why should you not bear the BOP on God’s existence even though you are the one putting that claim forward? I’m sure you would expect me to bear the BOP were I to claim God does not exist.

------

Now, my opponent has made some very specific arguments about the existence of God. Out of respect for my opponent I will give my counter arguments to these. However, as they are auxiliary to the debate at hand, Con need not feel obligated to address any of my points. I will happily debate him on this subject in a separate debate should he so desire.

My opponent’s central point is “The universe exists so we must assume that God has created it.”

The universe exists: naturally, this point is indisputable for all intents and purposes.

The universe had a beginning, a point when it came into being: all logic and physical evidence would indicate this is true as well.

However, this does not speak to the cause of the universe’s origin. That God created it is one valid possibility. But there are many other possibilities as well, either more or less likely depending on your beliefs and point of view. Given that A may have been caused by B, C, D, or E, regardless of the relative probability of each, we cannot say with certainty that simply because A exists then B must be true—likewise with C, D and E. The only thing we can say is given A, then B is possibly true but without additional evidence to constrain the possibilities we can say nothing more.

The same goes for the existence of spacetime, and in many ways this is just a restating of the earlier point. Spacetime and the universe are virtually synonymous outside questions regarding high energy physics. The existence of space and time do not, alone nor together, imply the existence of God.

Likewise, if I were to claim God must not exist because we do not see evidence of Him (a highly flawed and hotly debated claim in and of itself) that would not be proof of anything. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Proving beyond a doubt the existence or non-existence of God is no easy task. If it were, the question would have been solved thousands of years ago and not been hotly debated by many of the greatest minds of history.

We may each feel the question is settled and have no doubt in our minds what so ever. We do not need to justify whatever personal beliefs work for us. But once we express that those are truths which should be universally accepted and adhered to we take on the BOP for why that is so and why all other conflicting beliefs should be rejected.

Typically, all we can say is based on all evidence one alternative appears more likely and we personally believe that one to be true. But to absolutely prove that specific one is the undeniable truth is a much more difficult task.
MasterKage

Con

I thank Pro for his response.

"Con, you have made things more difficult for yourself than required. In this debate you need not actually prove the existence of God, but merely show why you should not be required to."

Maybe so, but I would prefer this topic.

"The universe had a beginning, a point when it came into being: all logic and physical evidence would indicate this is true as well."
You then proceeded to refute that God created the universe by stating there are other various points that are "either more or less likely depending on your beliefs and point of view."

Since you do not post any other theories negating the my point I will proceed to post a familiar theory of how the universe was created and refute it.

Once again, I will cite the Merriam Webster online dictionary.
The big bang theory is defined as "a theory in astronomy: the universe originated billions of years ago in an explosion from a single point of nearly infinite energy density."

One way you can tie this to God creating the universe is that God with powers of infinite would easily be able to create the explosion, or big bang that this theory states that that created the universe, would be correct.

"The same goes for the existence of spacetime, and in many ways this is just a restating of the earlier point. Spacetime and the universe are virtually synonymous outside questions regarding high energy physics. The existence of space and time do not, alone nor together, imply the existence of God."

Time and space are actually very separate deities, time is defined as "a non spatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future"
Space is defined as "a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction "

While these two have similar definitions, it is clear they are separate deities.

I thank my opponent for this debate, so far.
I greatly look forward to Pro's response.
Good luck.
Debate Round No. 2
Naoi

Pro

If Con would prefer to devote the remainder of this debate to the “existence of God based on the creation of the universe” I have no objections. I will take this as my opponent’s agreement with my BOP argument. I leave it to the reader how best to vote on this debate.

Con, you correctly cite the big bang theory as the primary alternative theory for the creation and development of the universe. As of yet, science has not developed any widely accepted or useful theories for the genesis of this “single point of near infinite energy density”, and it is conceivable that it never will.

I also agree, as you stated, “God with powers of infinite would easily be able to create the explosion, or big bang”. Right in Genesis it clearly shows how this would easily be within the powers attributed to God.

But notice how even you, yourself, only said that God “would easily be able to” but stopped short of saying He “did”.

He could have. It’s a valid and widely accepted theory. But as with before, we cannot make the leap from “He could have” to “He did”. Too many other possibilities must be eliminated before we can conclusively state “God did create the universe.”

It is a logical fallacy to say B could have caused A, we have A therefore B must be the cause. When B is not the only possible cause for A that conclusion is a non sequitur.

As for your second point: yes, temporal and special dimensions are not interchangeable. However, as Einstein showed in his work on General Relativity, they must be considered together in a four dimensional spacetime, most notably to correctly calculate the effects of time dilation at relativistic speeds and frame dragging within rotating gravitational fields. But that is all an unnecessary complication for this debate. In short you are correct, space and time are different, but they are not as separate our intuition would lead us to believe.

I thank my opponent for this mentally stimulating debate and for his excellent conduct throughout.
I look forward to reading Con’s conclusions and to future debates together.
Best of luck.
MasterKage

Con

I thank my Pro for this debate.

"But notice how even you, yourself, only said that God "would easily be able to" but stopped short of saying He "did"."

I did indeed state that as it is a theory, just as a the Big Bang is a theory.
Although God being linked with the big bang theory has not been proven, neither as the big bang theory.

"It is a logical fallacy to say B could have caused A, we have A therefore B must be the cause. When B is not the only possible cause for A that conclusion is a non sequitur."

We have yet to discover the origin of the big bang theory.

"In short you are correct, space and time are different, but they are not as separate our intuition would lead us to believe."

My argument still stands, space and time are different entities.

I have effectively refuted each of your points, therefore I urge a Con vote.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Con argued that if there was a beginning, then god did it. Pro points out that that "explanation" is not the only one available, so it should not be assumed.

Persuasiveness: Pro.

As to the "change" of topic, I have no problem with it. The resolution was not at all clear. I read it as saying that we shouldn't assume god exists. (We shouldn't assume he is in a "state of existence.")

Con looked at the confusing resolution, looked at what Pro-at-his-most-lucid was arguing, and concluded that this debate was about whether god exists. Since Pro seemed to be saying that god definitely does not exist, and since he was the Pro, Con offered to let Pro clarify that he had the burden of proof.

Pro accepted. This is not for us to criticize. The participants of the debate reached a meeting of the minds on what the topic was and who had the burden of proof. Our job as voters, then, is to see who did a better job of arguing on that agreed topic.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
The person who is making a positive statement has the burden of proof in a debate. On this board it is usually Pro and Instigator.

But if you are pro and you create a resolution "God does not exist," you have the burden of proof to prove that positive statement.
Posted by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
*automatically discount

I wish there were a way to edit these posts within the first 30 seconds after posting; I hate leaving errors in my posts...
Posted by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
RFD:

First off, SP/G and sources are tied; no complaints there.

I gave the conduct point to Pro, because he clearly laid out the aim of this (admittedly unorthodox) debate in the first round. Con accepted this debate, which was supposed to be about the burden of proof in religious debates. If he was confused about the topic, he could have asked for clarification; the comments section below bears witness that he did not. He starts out debating a different resolution than the one laid out R1, and when shown this he replied "Maybe so, but I would prefer this topic."

Yeah, you don't do that. That's an automatic loss for Con, since he refused to address the stated topic of the debate altogether.

Pro was nice enough to continue the debate on Con's terms, so I continued reading, and did not automatically count the remainder of the debate; but conduct goes to Pro from that sentence on.

Considering arguments: For the original topic, which needs to be debated more and should be retried, Pro wins easily since Con did not put forward any relevant arguments.

For the second topic, certain things stood out; in particular the argument about the possibility of God's involvement with the Big Bang. Pro is correct; there is a huge gap between saying God was able to have been the cause and saying God was the cause. The burden of proof is much higher for one than the other. Con's answer to this was laconic and self-defeating.

Pro answered Con's contentions, as far as they went, thoroughly; Con gave a less-than convincing last round rebuttal, and failed to establish any of his arguments with more than speculation.

Arguments to Pro, on all counts.
Posted by Naoi 5 years ago
Naoi
It's great you are so enthusiastic about this debate! I look forward to your response.
And good luck to you too!
Posted by MasterKage 5 years ago
MasterKage
My argument has been posted. Waiting for you response.
Posted by Naoi 5 years ago
Naoi
Please feel free to post your topic of choice and opening arguments.
Posted by MasterKage 5 years ago
MasterKage
I accept.

Okay, so is I assume the first round is for acceptance, or shall I post my argument on round one.

Any way, good luck.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
NaoiMasterKageTied
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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
NaoiMasterKageTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: See comment; I anticipate this RFD being longer than 500 characters.
Vote Placed by wierdman 5 years ago
wierdman
NaoiMasterKageTied
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: The debate was really intresting, but i do have to vote based on the actual debate. The fact that Con decided to stray from the original topic in which he accepted when he accepted the debate challenge, means that Pro automatically win. I suggest you create another challenged and title it "God does not exist." I also suggest more research towards future debate, I felt as if you could have incorporated so much more theories, facts or fallacies.