The Instigator
Philocat
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
KylePooley
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

It is likely 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...
Philocat
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/30/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,175 times Debate No: 69203
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (30)
Votes (2)

 

Philocat

Pro

I saw you were interested in being challenged in a debate concerning atheism/theism, would you be willing to debate this?

If so, I will be arguing that God, in a theistic sense, exists in actual reality.

Definitions

God: an omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent and wholly-good being.

Omnipotence: The ability to do anything that is logically possible to do

Omniscience: The ability to know anything that is logically possible to know

Transcendent: Non-physical and eternal (outside space-time).

Wholly-good being: Perfectly moral

My burden of proof is that it is likely (as opposed to unlikely) that the God defined above exists. You would have to prove that it is sufficiently unlikely that God exists.

I hope you accept the debate!
KylePooley

Con

To start off with you suggest that God is a wholly-good being?
There are a number of reasons why "God" is evil,
These are just a few examples:
- Committing genocide [1]
- Sending bears to murder children (4 Kings 2:23-24) [1]
- Unhappy with man, he floods the earth killing near all living things (GE 6:5) [2]
Note that there is no evidence to suggest that such an event ever occured, proving both points about God being a wholly-good being as well false events, maybe to the point of disproving god.
- Slavery was used for labour and sex [3]
Here are some quotes from the bible:

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT) [3]

Also the practise of sex on slaves,

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) [3]

This should help push start the idea of god not being a good 'being'

Omnipotence: The ability to do anything logically possible to do?
As touched upon before such as the great flood, there are also many logically IMPOSSIBLE scenarios that occur in the bible as followed:

- Noahs Ark, Carrying two of every animal onto what was definitely not a big enough boat for thousands of animals.
And even if this was so, how were the animals stopped from primal instinct of killing for food?
The construction of Noah's ark would also be impossible because of the incapabilities of sustaining all animals while its own weight.

- Walking on water, this doesn't deserve an explanation. In a rational, logical mind that you or anyone may seem to have, do you truly believe that the ability to walk on water is possible? And if you say Jesus is the only being to be able to do so, what is your proof to this matter other than text from an ancient book?

- Turning bread into wine, as similar as before, can you really explain this?

- Moses splitting the red sea into two?

A nice quote you should reflect on:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan

So, although these points can be proven to not be true, does this fully deny the existence of god?
Unfortunately not; but with anyone reading, should further their own opinion into the disbelief, lies or myths about what goes on in the bible.
But this being said? If what is untrue in an all perfect book, what does that say about the actual book itself?

Non-physical and eternal:
Why is god hiding away? Why am I and many others atheists? Wouldn't god want us all to be believers?
I hope you can see that it is very hard to believe of such a being without the physical proof of its self.

God is perfectly moral? As stated in my first points,would a perfectly moral being go out of its way to cause chaos and evil?
Do you believe that we SHOULD get our morals from the bible? And if so, is everyone immoral for not believing?

It will be interesting to see your evidence into why you think god exists, hopefully not always referring back to ancient text, but then again what else have you go to go on? As opposed to numerous amounts of physical evidence science has given us that all points towards the direction of evolution, subsequently disproving god.

[1] http://www.alternet.org...
[2] http://infidels.org...
[3] http://www.evilbible.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Philocat

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting, I will begin by making arguments for the existence of God, then I will responds to Con's arguments.

Argument for the existence of a transcendent being

My initial premise is that all physical entities have contingent existence, which is to say that all physical entities are currently existing because of some external circumstance or entity (1). We can inductively verify this premise a posteriori - every single physical thing we have ever observed has contingent exercise. Of course this does not deductively prove that the premise is correct, but as this is an inductive argument, the premises need not be deductive.

For example, Q exists because P exists, and P exists because R exists. Due to the contingent nature of physical existence, we can deduce that there is a causal chain between physical entities going back in time. However, this cannot be an infinite chain because an actual infinite cannot exist (2)(I commend this axiom to the voters). Therefore, this chain must have started off at a certain point. As we have established that physical entities exist contingently, a physical entity cannot have initiated the causal chain because it would have a preceding reason for its own existence.
Therefore, there must be a non-physical entity to start off the causal chain that has caused the existence of all the physical entities we observe today.

The gist of this argument is that a non-physical entity must exist. By definition, this non-physical being is transcendental. I will now argue that this being must hold the other properties I have defined God as having.

Argument for the omnipotence of God

This argument takes the form:

P1: God can be defined as a 'being that which nothing greater can be conceived'
P2: We can attempt to conceive of a God that is not omnipotent as well as a God that is omnipotent
P3: A God that is omnipotent is greater than a God that is not omnipotent
C: A non-omnipotent God is an absurdity

This argument may initially appear to be odd, but it is sound if one takes the time to examine it.
The definition in P1 is fairly axiomatic, as such a definition is concordant with a theistic understanding of God.
P2 is also true a posteriori, as I can personally attempt to conceive of both an omnipotent and a non-omnipotent God.
P3 is correct, as potency is a factor that contributes to greatness.

The conclusion logically follows from the premises, as if God was non-omnipotent then we could conceive of a being greater than him, which is a logical contradiction and so God cannot be non-omnipotent.

As God is not non-omnipotent then he must be omnipotent.

Argument for the omniscience of God

This takes a very similar line of logic to the omnipotence argument:

P1: God can be defined as a 'being that which nothing greater can be conceived'
P2: We can attempt to conceive of a God that is not omniscient as well as a God that is omniscient
P3: A God that is omniscient is greater than a God that is not omniscient
C: A non-omniscient God is an absurdity

The very same criteria for proving that God is omnipotent can also be applied to omniscience.

Argument for the wholly-good nature of God

Again, this uses the same logic to the above two arguments:

P1: God can be defined as a 'being that which nothing greater can be conceived'
P2: We can attempt to conceive of a God that is not good as well as a God that is good
P3: A God that is good is greater than a God that is not good
C: A God that is not good is an absurdity




These arguments prove the following:

1. A transcendent being exists
2. This being is omnipotent
3. This being is omniscient
4. This being is wholly-good.

All these conclusions amount to the final conclusion, that God exists.




Now I will respond to my opponent's arguments.

Immorality?

The issue with biblical evidence is that its veracity is doubted when it makes assertions about God. This is especially the case for the Old Testament.

Interestingly, Con asks that I argue by 'hopefully not always referring back to ancient text'. I take this to mean that he does not believe scriptural evidence to be sufficient evidence for arguing that God exists.
However, it works both ways, if the Bible is not sufficient evidence to prove that God exists, then it is not sufficient evidence to prove that God does NOT exist. If this was not the case, then the examples of apparent divine immorality should somehow be a lot more reliable than the far more frequent examples of apparent divine morality.

As most people dispute the reliability of the Bible as a whole, my opponent cannot use biblical evidence to prove that God is immoral.

My opponent goes some way to acknowledge this, when he says:

'Note that there is no evidence to suggest that such an event ever occured, proving both points about God being a wholly-good being as well false events, maybe to the point of disproving god.'

But he makes the unwarranted assertion that God does not exist because some of the biblical events were actually false.
The reality is that, just because some biblical events did not occur, this does not actually disprove God's existence.

For example, there are many myths concerning love (3), but it does not follow that, just because they are myths, that love does not actually exist. It is entirely possible, albeit likely, that people wrote stories and fables about God in order to convey their personal thoughts on God.

Taking this into account, just because the Bible contains accounts of God apparently acting immorally, this is insufficient evidence because of the unreliable nature of the Bible. Moreover, the unreliability of the Bible does not do anything do disprove that God exists.

Omnipotence

My opponent misunderstands the implications of what 'logically impossible' means. He seems to forget the 'logically' part and only focuses on the 'impossible' part. I never denied that God could do the impossible, I deny that God could do the logically impossible.

Only actions that are contradictory or paradoxical (such as creating a square circle) are logically impossible (4). Noah's Ark, on the other hand, is not logically impossible. It may be impossible in the sense that it would not have happened naturally, but it is not incoherent to postulate that the animals could have all fitted on a boat and not eaten each other. We do not need to attempt to explain how this occurred, all we need to do is conclude that it is not paradoxical.

Again, it is not logically impossible that Jesus walked on water because it is not incoherent to suppose that it could have possible occurred. It may be physically impossible but it is not logically impossible because it does not cause a logical paradox.

'Turning bread into wine'

There is no biblical evidence of this happening (5). If it did, I would say yet again that it is not logically impossible,

'Moses splitting the red sea into two?'

It is not logically impossible that the sea could split.

'If what is untrue in an all perfect book, what does that say about the actual book itself?'

But I never asserted that the bible is perfect. I think it is an interesting book to read and reflect on in context but it should not be taken literally.

Atheism

My opponent asks why atheism exists if God exists. I will explain...

It is good that God would want to have a relationship with people, and so, if God did exist, then he would want to be in a relationship with us. However, a relationship must be freely chosen, otherwise it is not a good relationship. As God is wholly-good, he would not want a relationship that was not freely chosen.
Therefore, it is a good thing that God allows us the free-will to chose to be in a relationship with him. But if there is to be a free choice, there logically must be two alternatives. If one is being in a relationship with God, then the other is not being in a relationship with God. The latter is atheism.
Consequently, atheism must exist as the necessary consequence of God giving us the free will to chose to be in a relationship with him.

It is like going on a date with a women that you love; you want her to love you but you want her to choose to love you freely. If you were a hypnotist then you could hypnotise the woman into loving you, but this would not be a quality relationship because she did not choose to be in it.

If God presented undeniable evidence of his existence then it would not be possible to deny God (and therefore not possible to choose to embrace God), as no rational person can deny undeniable evidence.

Morality

Con asks whether a perfectly moral being would go out of its way to cause chaos and evil, but as this relies on fallible scripture, I will dismiss it as evidence of God behaving in the aforementioned manner.
He then asks whether we should get our morals from the Bible. I would answer that the Bible is a useful reference point for morality if it is taken in context and not literally, but it does not have to be the source of ALL our morality. We can still get morality from our conscience, utilitarianism or deontology. All of these sources of morality could be endorsed to some degree by God but are not reliant on belief in God, and so an atheist could act morally.

Science?

'As opposed to numerous amounts of physical evidence science has given us that all points towards the direction of evolution, subsequently disproving god.'

I would be interested to see why my opponent believes that evolution and God are mutually exclusive.




(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(2) http://ed.ted.com...
(3) http://www.thehellenictimes.com...
(4) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(5) https://www.biblegateway.com...
KylePooley

Con

Ok, So you've started this debate off by asking the question "Is it LIKELY, that god exists?", which to me, seems to be an easy and simple question to answer, especially for those who are atheists.

But by asking that the LIKELY-HOOD of God, suggests that your views may not necessarily be religious views?, Maybe agnostic?

By going on the term likely-hood, we should be ridden of any knowledge that we have for the question and base our answer with pure ignorance and go by our common sense, logic and reason to determine whether or not God is plausible.

In simple terms of viewing evidence on behalf of both sides of the debate, the only evidence to what I can see in favour of God is that of an ancient book, with ancient text that has been written thousands of years ago.
What we obviously know now is that the science used and specifically their technology for which we love, cherish and take for granted was almost non existent at the time.

Another question I would like to ask, and for those who are also reading and religious:

What else, if anything do you disagree with science about?

You use science in your everyday lives, You touch science every minute, what is it about our theories of God not existing you don't or wont understand?, Have you given science a try?, Have you read about Evolution?, because although I don't want to generalise, I would say more Atheists have read into the theology of religion than those who are religious and have read into Evolution.
Science has helped save lives, help prevent lives from being taken.
Why is it that we have work to prevent evil from happening?, whilst bent over on our knees, praying to something we are told to be God, asking for love.
When he doesn't show himself and help those who need it most if he can't help everybody, instead he hides away whilst all this is going down. To me, I don't think this is very fair, maybe he's not a very fair person if you would care to answer that.

Now, as for the LIKELY-HOOD, I want your full attention and full ignorance to really think logically, rationally and with all the common sense that you have to hopefully understand where I am coming from as well, God being proven through an ancient text book that was written in a time of science not being understood, or, centuries of specific research into Evolution of Humans and the world through multiple physical evidence to which I will go through at a later note. To which all evidence points towards the same direction which we can obviously only presume to be correct.

I would like to add to this, is by asking if you or any religious person is going to tell me that they agree with some science and disagree with other parts, which, do you know what? Is absolutely fine, but I would like to ask if you would do the same to your own religion.
Is there any part of your religion you disagree with, if so, what? and why?
Do you take the bible literal to its fullest?

To start off, you argue that god exists in ACTUAL reality?
What do you fully mean by this?
What I can take from that is just logically impossible.
Now, without saying that there are subatomic particle's to what can be seen without the naked eye and yet still there and still fact, cannot be said to that of god because there have been no scientific explanations, correct experimentations, that proves god to be real.

Then go on by saying God is Omnipotent and Omniscient.
have you read or even realise that with in that statement, is contradictory with in its self.
Known as the Omnipotence paradox:

The paradox is used both as an argument against an Omnipotent God and against the concept of true Omnipotence.

"The paradox highlights cases where, in performing an action, an omnipotent being would be limiting its abilities (therefore rendering it very firmly not omnipotent); conversely if it was unable to perform such an action, it would also not be omnipotent. The paradox represents a reductio ad absurdum, with the conclusion that a truly omnipotent being cannot exist.
The most classic example of the paradox, a Morton's fork, is the "Paradox of the Stone":
Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?
If yes: the being's power is limited, because it cannot lift the stone.
If no: the being's power is limited, because it cannot create the stone.
Either way, the allegedly omnipotent being has proven not to be omnipotent due to the logical contradiction present in both possible answers.
The stone paradox can be substituted with similar examples. E.g. Could an omnipotent being create another being more powerful than itself? Could an omnipotent being destroy itself? Could he create a wall he cannot climb? Could he beat himself at arm-wrestling? And so on. The situation crops up numerous times in different wordings but all mean the same thing.
Some variations gives other useful consequences:
Can God create a cryptography/key exchange system so secure that he himself cannot crack/bypass?
If no: He does not have the ability to authenticate any of his revelations, and therefore he lacks omnipotence, and cannot authentically reveal anything to anyone.
If yes: He does not have the ability to bypass encryptions therefore he lacks omnipotence and omniscience." [1]

A nice quote by Home Simpson -
"Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?" [1]

As for evidence found by science to prove evolution, here is a little list to what Physical evidence we have:

Fossil Evidence - The fossil record provides us with snapshots of the past and when assembled, creates a picture that allows us to evolutionary change over billions of years of the same species, specifically humans.
Fossils can tell us about growth patterns in ancient times and how the differ yet hold similarities to animals and humans now.
Admittedly, there are gaps in the line of fossils but this can only mean that they haven't been found and not that it is false evidence.
One of the complete line of fossil works is for a Horse, We know that over 60 million years (Compared to your 6000 years), Horses have evolved from dog sized creatures that lived in the rainforest, to what we know of them now.
In addition, we know that by just looking at the feet of the fossils, it has changed from being multi-toed, allowing itself to walk across the forest floor to evolving a single hoof, more suitable now for it to run in the countryside. [2]

From what I hear and read, I know that a lot, maybe some religious people believe that the earth is only 6000 years old.
This can not obviously be true if Evolution was to be true.

Earth's Age - "The age of the Earth is 4.54 " 0.05 billion years (4.54 " 109 years " 1%). This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples." [3]
Obviously, if Earth was to be billions of years old, surely what is still on earth, should have been around for billions of years also? Well, that is the case as there are minerals such as Lead in uranium-rich minerals and small crystals of zicron.
There are many, many ways of showing different process' of ageing that disproves the 6000 year theory which I will not go all out on but tree's are another simple way of knowing how earth is older that 6000 years old.
Just by simple taking a row from any living tree and counting the concentric rings that are within, we are able to know and test the age of the tree. You may find this hard to believe because I know it may sound it, but the recurring testing of the same tree for years have all proven to be correct, knowing that the tree is growing.

Without getting into too much detail as I don't have enough 'superior' knowledge on any of these topics, as I am only an Artist and an Auto-didact (Self Teaching).
Dinosaurs and the use of analysing their DNA to test how old they are, along with any fossilised plant is also a proof for the Earth not being only 6000 years old.

Now, I have gone on a bit about the age of the earth, but if I was to be true, what does that say about God? Or Religion?
Surely this is a factor into proving God is not real or even slightly showing that the LIKELY-HOOD of God is even less of a chance.

I'm not sure what else I an say other than awaiting your reply :)
I want to thank YOU, and those reading because this is a very nice topic...and a lot of writing.

http://rationalwiki.org... [1]
http://www.bbc.co.uk... [2]
http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]
Debate Round No. 2
Philocat

Pro

My opponent drops my arguments for the existence of God, but I will give him the chance to respond to them in the following rounds. I will now content myself with answering his questions and refuting his statements that attack the resolution.




'But by asking that the LIKELY-HOOD of God, suggests that your views may not necessarily be religious views?, Maybe agnostic?'

Not at all, I am religious because I believe it to be true that God exists. However, I cannot prove that he definitely exists, so all I can do is to prove that it is likely that God exists.
An agnostic does not believe theism is any more probable than atheism (and vice-versa) and that we cannot know either way (1), whereas I argue that theism IS more probable than atheism.

'By going on the term likely-hood, we should be ridden of any knowledge that we have for the question and base our answer with pure ignorance and go by our common sense, logic and reason to determine whether or not God is plausible.'

Why do you believe 'pure ignorance' should be used? I'm not too sure what you mean with this sentence. Ignorance is 'The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.' (2) and so presumably 'pure ignorance' is the condition of being even more uninformed. I struggle to see why such a condition is desirable in this debate.

'the only evidence to what I can see in favour of God is that of an ancient book, with ancient text that has been written thousands of years ago.'

I invite you to read my round 2 arguments, which explain the evidence in favour of God. In contrast, I do not believe that the Bible provides satisfactory evidence for God's existence so we must debate my own arguments, and not debate the veracity of the Bible because it does not pertain to the resolution.

'What else, if anything do you disagree with science about?'

There is no major scientific fact or theory that I outright deny.

'what is it about our theories of God not existing you don't or wont understand?'

I understand them, but I do not take them to be valid.

'Have you given science a try?, Have you read about Evolution?'

I study physics and mathematics at college; hence I have more scientific understanding than most people.

'I would say more Atheists have read into the theology of religion than those who are religious and have read into Evolution.'

This may well be true, but I very much doubt it applies to myself, and so this statement is not relevant to this debate.

'Why is it that we have work to prevent evil from happening?'

Hard work for a worthy cause is how we, as humans, develop as people. For example, someone can only become good at science if they are challenged to such an extent that they must work hard. If they are not pushed to work hard, then they cannot become more proficient at science. Therefore we can only become better people if we are challenged to work hard.

'whilst bent over on our knees, praying to something we are told to be God, asking for love.'

Praying and asking for love is the way in which we can open ourselves up, consenting if you will, to God's love. This is not a bad thing.

'When he doesn't show himself and help those who need it most if he can't help everybody, instead he hides away whilst all this is going down. To me, I don't think this is very fair, maybe he's not a very fair person if you would care to answer that.'

Most religions maintain the view that God works through people. For example, God would help victims of hurricanes by inspiring people to donate money and do humanitarian work. Just because he does not show himself does not mean that he is not helping.

'God being proven through an ancient text book that was written in a time of science not being understood, or, centuries of specific research into Evolution of Humans and the world through multiple physical evidence to which I will go through at a later note. To which all evidence points towards the same direction which we can obviously only presume to be correct.'

This is an invalid argument because its first premise, that the only possible proof of God's existence is contained within the bible, is false. This is because my arguments in round 2 do not rely on or even mention the Bible.

'Is there any part of your religion you disagree with, if so, what? and why?'

As a Roman Catholic, I disagree with the assertion that non-penetrative sex and contraception are essentially immoral (3), because the logic that is used to condemn these actions rely on a particular interpretation of Natural Law, and whilst I do not disagree with Natural Law, I disagree with that particular interpretation. Nevertheless, this is not exactly relevant to this debate.

'Do you take the bible literal to its fullest?'

No, I take the Bible to be a good reference book with which we can take advice and guidance, but I do not take it literally.

'To start off, you argue that god exists in ACTUAL reality?
What do you fully mean by this?'

When I argue that God exists in actual reality, I argue that God actually exists in reality. The reason I said 'actual' is to differentiate my view from the anti-realist view that God exists but only exists in the mind. I argue that there is a God and this God exists externally to ourselves and is an independent being.

'cannot be said to that of god because there have been no scientific explanations, correct experimentations, that proves god to be real.'

I agree; trying to empirically look for God is foolish because empiricism can only detect physical entities. But just because something cannot be empirically observed it does not mean that it does not exist.




My opponent goes on to present the omnipotence 'paradox', I will respond to the so-called paradox using the definitions of God's characteristics that I laid out in round 1.
As the paradox of the stone is what my opponent discusses in most detail, I will refute it in particular.

Before I start, remember the definition of omnipotence I presented in round 1:

'The ability to do anything that is logically possible to do'

Returning to the dilemma posed in the paradox of the stone:

'Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?
If yes: the being's power is limited, because it cannot lift the stone.
If no: the being's power is limited, because it cannot create the stone.'

The answer would be no. But does this contradict God's omnipotence?
No it does not. This is because the object we are addressing is 'a stone so heavy that God cannot lift it', I argue that God's omnipotence would not necessitate his ability to create such a stone because the existence of the stone is NOT logically possible.
A stone that cannot be lifted by an all-powerful being has logically impossible existence, because the ability to lift anything is entailed by the essence of omnipotence. Therefore it would not be logically possible to create the stone. As God's omnipotence only allows him to do logically possible things, the fact that God would be unable to create the stone does not contradict his omnipotence . Therefore the paradox of the stone is mere sophistry and is not a true paradox.

The same rebuttal can be applied to all the other supposed omnipotence paradoxes. My opponent goes on to prove that evolution is a correct theory and that the earth is >6000 years old.
However, this is all irrelevant because:

1) Evolution does not imply that God does not exist
2) God's existence is not disproved by the age of the earth being >6000 years old.
3) As a theist, I do not deny evolution or the scientific age of the earth.

My opponent makes the false assumption that the advocacy of God's existence is interdependent with the rejection of evolution and the belief that the earth is 6000 years old.

'Surely this is a factor into proving God is not real or even slightly showing that the LIKELY-HOOD of God is even less of a chance.'

Why is it a factor at all? Why does the fact that the earth is older than 6000 years old disprove God or even reduce the probability of him existing?




I thank my opponent for continuing to participate in the debate, and I will now pass it over to him so he can reply to my points (including, if he wishes, my initial arguments for the existence of God).



(1) http://rationalwiki.org...;
(2) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...;
KylePooley

Con

"Of course this does not deductively prove that the premise is correct, but as this is an inductive argument, the premises need not be deductive."
- We are both fighting a losing and winning battle because OBVIOUSLY it it about belief and no other way of disproving belief is with evidence. This then means that because we both believe our evidence is stringer that the other there will be no definitive proof of the existence of god.

What frustrates me is no matter what has been proven by science, there is always a way to say that god was a contribution towards it. Which does not make the likelyhood of god any higher than not being a god.
Coming from this, I feel that no matter what, there is always a way of replying to what ever science has to say about the disproval of god.
I know that we both know about the metaphorical and literal issues within the bible, but this doesn't concern me.
What concerns me is the fact that how do you or any other religious person know truly what was intended to be the literal truth and what is just metaphorical poetry.
I would have to say, I do agree that there are SOME intentions as to the metaphors, but, the issue which I just said was how do we know it was intended to be read that way?

As you have already read in the comments, why are their so many objections amongst the religious group?
Surely they should all believe in the same thing or am I missing something?
If you believe there to be a god, what about the gods before the god?
To science, it has been proven that God was not the first to be written about, and so we know that the greek gods and Pagans were written about, which we now take to be myth.

Continuing with the them of other gods, Jesus has been thought of to just be a copy as through biblical accounts from Pagan gods such as Horus, Mithras, Krishna, Dionysus and others.
This can say two things, either it is coincidence and all gods are too exist, or that the likelyhood of being a god is just based on patterned story telling through the ages.
What do you think of other gods? And the near perfect scenarios within them?

I would just like to note the similarities between them: [1]

- Born on 25th December
- Born a virgin ( I know...We all are...)
- Attended to by Shepard's
- Wise men came to adore the saviour
- Child prodigy teacher at age 12
- Dead for three days, resurrected
- Had 12 Disciples

By giving definition and one's own reason to the view of a god is no evidence or proof of the existence of god.
Also by referring to the argument, stating that if my evidence does not prove god exists, then your evidence cannot disprove him either.
Which I respond, Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence?
Where is your list of evidence that points towards a god other than logical arguments that don't prove anything.

Have you heard of Newtons Flaming Laser Sword?
A brief summary for this debate, "what cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating" [2]

As argument follows, will be at a recurrence of stating that we cannot prove god, but cannot disprove.

"Consequently, atheism must exist as the necessary consequence of God giving us the free will to chose to be in a relationship with him."
- You suggest that it is Atheism necessity at the consequence of God existing, this can be turned around. God is the consequence of not knowing the answer, hence making a falsified belief that fills the gaps to be at some ease.

"Why do you believe 'pure ignorance' should be used?"
- This was also a case of not taking something to it literal state, as to show how a sentence can be misinterpreted. by pure ignorance, I mean by getting rid or anything you know to be able to see with full open mindedness of any situation.
Make your OWN assumption and not to be suggested by either the bible, or Atheists.
But this is not really a statement in which deserves a reply.

'what is it about our theories of God not existing you don't or wont understand?'

"I understand them, but I do not take them to be valid."
- Why?..

'I would say more Atheists have read into the theology of religion than those who are religious and have read into Evolution.'

"This may well be true, but I very much doubt it applies to myself, and so this statement is not relevant to this debate."
- It may well and be irrelevant in your case, but we are on speaking of religion as a whole, which makes it relevant.

'When he doesn't show himself and help those who need it most if he can't help everybody, instead he hides away whilst all this is going down. To me, I don't think this is very fair, maybe he's not a very fair person if you would care to answer that.'

"Most religions maintain the view that God works through people. For example, God would help victims of hurricanes by inspiring people to donate money and do humanitarian work. Just because he does not show himself does not mean that he is not helping."
- This is in no way God helping with victims, Just because money has been given both BOTH religious and non-believers, which makes charitable favours irrelevant. He does not use any magical powers to help. Is this because he wants cause and effect? Giving money doesn't help the ACTUAL victim, only a prevention.

"the existence of the stone is NOT logically possible."
- But this is also a contradiction to what all powerful can do, logically anything.

This is starting to get repetitive in a sense of not being able to prove gods existence, but can prove his existence.
Obviously we have to stick with them main objective of the Question which was the likelyhood, but again, either way with what evidence we may think we have brought to the table is no way going to change the mind of the two of us.
They are both suggestive in the plausibility of god's existence but I would deter saying that religion can only use logic based argument which can be used with anything (Ontological Argument) - No point getting into that.

[1] http://beginningandend.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Philocat

Pro

'We are both fighting a losing and winning battle because OBVIOUSLY it it about belief and no other way of disproving belief is with evidence. This then means that because we both believe our evidence is stringer that the other there will be no definitive proof of the existence of god.'

That's not how debates work. I posted a valid argument. It will remain valid until you manage to prove that it is an invalid argument. The same applies to myself - if you post a valid argument then it will remain so until I prove it otherwise. Obviously we can never prove it 100% either way, but this debate is about likelihood. In other words, my argument asserts that it is likely that God exists. It is up to you to disprove the argument.

'What frustrates me is no matter what has been proven by science, there is always a way to say that god was a contribution towards it. Which does not make the likelyhood of god any higher than not being a god.'

I don't know why you would be frustrated, unless you WANT God to be disproved.
I agree with you though, about how it does not change the likelihood of God's existence. What it actually shows is that scientific discoveries do not reduce the likelihood of God.
For example, explaining why God is compatible with the theory of evolution refutes the argument that evolution disproves God.

'how do you or any other religious person know truly what was intended to be the literal truth and what is just metaphorical poetry.'

This is where common sense comes in. If something seems to contradict our basic knowledge (such as the world being created in 7 days) then we should attempt to take its meaning metaphorically. However, if something is non-contradictory then it is safe to take it literally.
Of course not all theists will share the same interpretations, but that does not really matter at the end of the day because the core-beliefs about God remain the same.

'why are their so many objections amongst the religious group? Surely they should all believe in the same thing or am I missing something?'

The objections are largely about details within religion, such as transubstantiation, moral law and the trinity. The fundamental belief in God is the same. My personal view is the omnist view (1); which is to say that all religions are talking about the same God but simply have different perspectives and interpretations. This is understandable, considering our minds our limited and so are bound to struggle when comprehending the infinite (God).

'If you believe there to be a god, what about the gods before the god?'
'What do you think of other gods? And the near perfect scenarios within them?'


I do not believe that those gods exist, simply because my argument for the existence of God does not prove the existence of a pantheon of gods, it only proves the existence of a single, omnipotent God.

'This can say two things, either it is coincidence and all gods are too exist, or that the likelyhood of being a god is just based on patterned story telling through the ages.'

This is because the fundamental idea of a god has remained the roughly the same throughout history. Assuming that our idea of God is reasonably accurate, it is only to be expected that the actual God (Jesus) is similar to other ideas of God (such as Horus or Krishna).

'Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence'

A logical argument is evidence. And I have provided an extraordinary logical argument which therefore provides extraordinary evidence that God exists (the extraordinary claim).

'Where is your list of evidence that points towards a god other than logical arguments that don't prove anything.'

I'm sorry? The very concept of proof relies upon logical arguments. To say that logical arguments don't prove anything is nonsensical.

'A brief summary for this debate, "what cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating"'

I simply disagree. Pure reason is enough to prove something without the need for experiment.

I would add that most of quantum mechanics has not been proved by experiment (nor can it be), but that does not mean that it is not worth debating quantum mechanics. Theoretical physicists use pure reason and mathematics, which is just as adequate a form of elucidation as experimental investigation is.

'God is the consequence of not knowing the answer, hence making a falsified belief that fills the gaps to be at some ease.'

Not necessarily. You have the incorrect view that belief in God is only a way to 'fill the gaps' in scientific knowledge. I believe in God because His existence is proved independently (using my logical arguments).

'I mean by getting rid or anything you know to be able to see with full open mindedness of any situation.
Make your OWN assumption and not to be suggested by either the bible, or Atheists.'


That's fine, I take an open-mind in debates.

'Why?..'

It's your job to present the arguments against the existence of God, then I will show you why they are not valid. You can't expect me to go through every single atheistic argument and say why I do not believe them to be valid.

'It may well and be irrelevant in your case, but we are on speaking of religion as a whole, which makes it relevant.'

Even if some religious people read less into science than atheists read into religion, it would not make it any less likely that God exists. There are many scientifically minded people, like myself, you believe in God (2). Therefore it cannot be claimed that belief in God can only be held from a position of scientific ignorance.

'He does not use any magical powers to help. Is this because he wants cause and effect? Giving money doesn't help the ACTUAL victim, only a prevention.'

God isn't a magician in the sky who would wave his wand to make everything better. God, as an omnibenevolent being, would want people to develop. We can only develop if given responsibility for our own world and our own community. If God always stepped in and helped people then we would not get the chance to develop as responsible and loving beings.

'But this is also a contradiction to what all powerful can do, logically anything.'

Yes, but the stone is not part of 'logically anything', because the stone is not logically possible. Therefore omnipotence would not entail that the stone could be created.

'would deter saying that religion can only use logic based argument which can be used with anything (Ontological Argument)'

Logic based arguments form the basis of all our knowledge. To deny the validity of logic is to sabotage our entire knowledge-base. Even experimental evidence requires logical arguments to process it into a valid conclusion. (3)

Furthermore, the ontological argument can only be used with a being that has 'an intrinsic maximum'. I would go on to explain it but for the fact that the ontological argument (at least in its original form) has not been part of this debate so far, and it would be pointless to include it now considering that my main argument has remained unrefuted.




(1) http://www.psychicsuniverse.com...
(2) http://www.godandscience.org...
(3http://en.wikipedia.org...
KylePooley

Con

Other than forgetting about replying to this debate (Due to circumstances), There is not a lot else I can say to this other than disputing you have said in the last argument.

"I don't know why you would be frustrated, unless you WANT God to be disproved."
- It's not that I don't WANT God to be disproved, its the fact that I WANT the proof to know the existence or not.
but, not want it so much that it disrupts my life. I want people to think for themselves, which I know you might say you do but your morals and ethics to a certain amount do come from the bible. I agree Atheists can also be fickle with 'facts' but the the militant Atheists think for themselves.
Whatever scientific discoveries will say, there will always be a comeback to say "But God done that", there will be no amount of proof or any proof that can definitely disprove god, because of the constant regress.

I don't think common sense is a valid answer, because to me, its common sense that there isn't something looking over me and created us, it is no basic knowledge.
But it is something to think about when the disagreement within a group varies massively.

I just don't understand why the details in religion are disputed? Why should there be any difference? If it all originates in the same place then its just a thousand year old game of Chinese whispers.

I just simple cannot understand only believing in ONE god, it just seems unfair, contradicting and hypocritical. It doesn't prove the existence of a single god because it is only based on a cleverly put argument.

God has remained roughly the same? I'm sure he should be the same, thought of as the same and believed to be the same and will ever be.

A logical argument, is not extraordinary evidence. You are using the same argument that has been arranged say that there are multiple answers within a statement that shows that its one answer. This is not proof.

Reason comes in many shapes and form, reason does not determine whether something is to be true, false, right, wrong.

" I would add that most of quantum mechanics has not been proved by experiment (nor can it be)"
- You cannot know this.

"You have the incorrect view that belief in God is only a way to 'fill the gaps' in scientific knowledge."
- If I have the incorrect perception of god, what does that say about the other religious people? Does this make my point less valid because I say there is no god? It suggests that its clinging on to something that you hope to be true.

I would like to end by saying that if there is anything I haven't responded to, it is because I have either forgot, or it was no worthy of a reply.
The ontological argument is not a worthy point to refute.
Debate Round No. 4
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by nrglite 2 years ago
nrglite
Philocat just might have a follow-up debate waiting ;)
Posted by KylePooley 2 years ago
KylePooley
I've been slacking with this debate at the moment, let alone this sub-debate.. haha
I have been keeping up with it ;)
What I will say is as their are obviously many ways of thinking especially many ways of interpreting the bible. I do agree in the fact that the some of the bible, if not all may have been intended to be read metaphorically, as Philocat said about our use of non-literal language. Philocat we may have been reading the same things haha :)
But what I disagree with is the modern decision of being able to decide what was meant to be seen as fact and metaphorically.
So, I don't know for sure if God's intentions or whoever wrote the bible was to make a factual book on events and people.
This is very juicy, but no one will ever be right, until either your dead or the big bang is explained.
Posted by nrglite 2 years ago
nrglite
Kyle, come and look at this juicy side debate :)
Posted by nrglite 2 years ago
nrglite
I see now. you are a believer in theistic evolution, correct?
I notice that you interpret the Bible in the light of 'facts' instead of the other way around. I see it all. You have the facts of the world as the lamp to your feet. Now, I may seem like one of those narrow-minded conservatives, but it is true: Theistic evolution not only destroys credibility in Scripture, but your statement contradicts some serious stuff.
So, Pooley, you may take note of this.
Mm. A burning bush. Spontaneous combustion of foliage will not cause the plant to be consumed. Even Moses thought this was freaking weird. Of course it can't be true, so it probably represents like a dream or whatever.
Aha! A great unknown aquatic beast passing a human through its alimentary canal into its digestive center! Heck, will a morsel like Jonah survive 72 hours within the acidic solution of a "ketos," in Greek a "sea monster?!" Course not.
Jesus rising from the dead after being speared, crucified, whipped and entombed?!! Certainly not. How can the body of a human endure such trauma?! Of course it was allegorical.
What's that, St.Paul? If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then most miserable men are we? Augh, you got to be kidding. You also must be joking about that Jesus-shining-from-the-sky thingie. I mean, becoming blind or something? Not possible.

I pray that you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
However, Pooley, a quote from Scripture:
"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, 'Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. ' "
Posted by Philocat 2 years ago
Philocat
Don't be close-minded nrglite; it is perfectly valid for a Christian to not take Genesis literally. I will explain.

Let us imagine that my friend says to me 'Wow, my car is really fast! I flew down the motorway at 100mph!'.
Which bits of this statement do we take literally? This is where common sense comes in.
Prima facie, we should take statements to be literal. Looking at the statement that 'my car is really fast' and that my friend went at '100 mph'. We take these literally because they seem sensible and accord to my prior knowledge that cars can go fast and can reach 100mph.

However, if we hear something that does NOT accord to our prior knowledge, or runs contradictory to factual evidence, then we should interpret it figuratively. The statement 'I flew down the motorway' contradicts our previous knowledge of the fact that cars don't fly. Therefore we should attempt to interpret this statement figuratively.

This is how the Bible should be interpreted. If there is a statement in the Bible that accords with factual evidence (or at least not contradict it) then we should take it literally by default. However if there is a statement that contradicts our prior knowledge of facts and evidence then we should move to interpret it figuratively. As I said before, it's all about common sense.

Applying this to Genesis and Jesus's quotes, our established body of knowledge of the origin of the universe contradicts the account in Genesis. Therefore, using the same process described above, we should instead interpret it figuratively.
Posted by nrglite 2 years ago
nrglite
Indeed Philocat? You may already have lost the debate: In this case Pooley may have the advantage.
Nowhere is Genesis poetic or in anyway allegorical. It speaks, And on the seventh day God rested, and he saw it was very good. And it also says, THIS IS THE ACCOUNT OF THE HEAVENS AND EARTH WHEN THEY WERE CREATED. If you indeed speak against what even Jesus said and quoted, I dunno whose side you're on.
Not to offend you Philocat, but a debater must know his enemy, AND know himself.
Posted by Philocat 2 years ago
Philocat
nrglite, I believe Genesis is true, but not in a literal sense. The fundamental message of genesis is one I defend.
Posted by KylePooley 2 years ago
KylePooley
but the people that disagree with each other I was talking about are religious. So if they are under God, surely they should all agree with each other? So, yes it is the peoples fault..but the instigation for their disagreement comes from religion i.e. God
Posted by nrglite 2 years ago
nrglite
BTW Pooley, the difference between our denominations is what? Can't hear you? Yes, the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GROUPS OF PEOPLE. Yes, PEOPLE. It's not God's fault, it's the faults of YE PEOPLE.
Posted by nrglite 2 years ago
nrglite
Ugh, you too Philocat?! And here I was assuming you were defending the integrity of the Bible!!
Duh, Jesus cited the book of Genesis as TRUTH. And if he was lying, and Moses was too, etc, then why the heck defend the Bible?!
You have to accept the REALITY of a literal Genesis. If you can't defend the fact that God created the world in SIX LITERAL DAYS, then you've lost by warping the facts of your own home territory. 'Yom' is 'Yom', no matter where in the Bible, including Genesis, and it means 1 EXACT DAY. So. Both you and Pooley have to agree that Genesis is what it says: A record of a world created in record time.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
PhilocatKylePooleyTied
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 dropped a number of Pro's arguments and failed to understand the definitions made at the outset. Conduct, S&G and sources tied.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
PhilocatKylePooleyTied
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: Despite Pro's charitable attitude toward his opponent's dropping of all of Pro's affirmative arguments, I cannot overlook this fact. Because of this drip, all of Pro's arguments must be presumed true. With that in mind, arguments to Pro.