The Instigator
Typhlochactas
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
Cinco
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

It is more probable than not that a god exists.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
Typhlochactas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,113 times Debate No: 30744
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (8)

 

Typhlochactas

Pro

Ave.

Definitions: God is that which nothing greater can be conceived
Existence is to have actual being in reality

Burden of Proof: Pro must show that it is more probable than not that a god exists. When we consider all things, the arguments favor theism over atheism, if only by the smallest margin possible.

Con must negate Pro's arguments.

Rules: First round is for acceptance. Next two rounds are for back and forth argumentation. No putting forward new arguments in the last round, and general rules of conduct should be followed.

Vale.
Cinco

Con

Not sure if this will work (DDO will not verify my phone number,) but fire away.
Debate Round No. 1
Typhlochactas

Pro

Ave.

Contingency Argument

P1) Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

P2) The universe exists.
P3) The universe has an explanation of its existence.
P4) The explanation of the universe is not due to necessity.
P5) The explanation of the universe must be due to an external cause.
P6) The external cause must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, and personal.
P7) If god existed, he would at least have the traits of being spaceless, timeless, immaterial, omnipotent, and personal.
C: The external cause of the universe is god.

Justification

P1: It is impossible to concieve of anything that does not have a reason for its existence. If it just exists, then that in itself would be an explanation for its existence.

P2: If the universe doesn't exist, how are we debating each other?

P3: This follows logically from P1 and P2.

P4: We have astrophysical evidence that the universe began to exist. If the universe began to exist, then it cannot exist nessecarily.

P5: From P4, the only choice is that the universe exists because of an external ca

P6: Spaceless because it existed before space. Timeless because it existed before time. Immaterial because it existed before matter. Omnipotent because of the great power required to cause the universe to exist. Personal because god must have intended for the universe to be created.

P7: If god did not have any of those traits, he would not be maximally great.

Moral Argument

P1) If god does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not ext.
P2) Objective moral values and duties exist.
C) God exists.

Justification
P1: The least arbitary and most plausible source of objective moral value duties would be a maximally great being that exemplifies the standards of moral good. If this maximally great being does not exist, then it follows that there is no standard of objective moral values and duties.

P2: 1) For any action A affecting some person P, if A has moral content, then A cannot be amoral

2) If such morals exist, then they would exist necessarily

3) Some objective moral knowledge exists

Therefore,

4) Moral truths exist.


Conclusion
If the two arguments I have offered stand, then it follows that it is more probable for god to exist than not to exist. I turn the debate over to Con in order to rebutt my arguments. I thank you for reading, and I hope we have an interesting debate.

Vale.

Cinco

Con

Thanks to my opponent - that's a good looking argument!

It is my intention to dispense with your God using nothing but my chopstick.

By giving your God existence and placing existence in reality, all I have to do is add my chopstick and reality becomes "God + 1 chopstick" - at which point reality is easily conceived as being "greater" and God, as you've defined Him, disappears.

You "disappeared" your own God. Now what?
Debate Round No. 2
Typhlochactas

Pro

Ave.

Contingency Argument
Con drops this. Extended.

Moral Argument
Con drops this. Extended.

Con's Chopstick Argument
Con's silly argument against the existence of god never ends up making any sense. Why should we consider God plus one chopstick to be greater than God? Even if that assumption can be justified, it still doesn't mean that god doesn't exist. It just means that other things exist along with god, which is something that any theist could rationally accept. The argument fails because it makes unjustified assumptions, and it is ultimately a non-sequitur.


Vale.
Cinco

Con

Pro began with a God of untenable greatness by placing it in reality, along with everything else, thereby creating a reality that is greater than his God. He could have argued that reality is God or that it contains God, but in aticipation of arguments, he did both. He did, in fact, accidentally hit on the only definition of God that has ever interested me - Reality as God - but he didn't know it.

"Reality as God" would make Pro "the right hand of God" but it would also make everyone else equally so, which participating theists would be loathe to accept. Despite an increased chance of actually winning the argument. If reality is God, then everything and everyone is equally a little God and the Pro's would finally have a God that an atheist might accept. However, the argument has nothing to do with "God", does it? This argument is about resenting being resented for resenting being resented.

If you look at the sides seperately, "offense" is called "defense" and "defese" is called "offence". Viewed as a whole, offense and defense are one and the same because the argument, oversall, is an endless loop.

"God" and "no God" are equally possible - exactly equal - but, inside the loop, that is irrelevant because the argument isn't about "God". It's about resentment and resentment is 100% personal. Regardless of how many resntful people you gather - regardless of the presence of some sort of "mass consciousness" of resentment - each is offended, personally - assuming they aren't there for the free coffee, each has personally and freely chosen to participate.

Some would say "but he wants to make me do this" or "they want me to believe that" but so what? No one can dictate to you. If how others respond to what you want to do or believe is more important to you than doing and saying as you please, then that's your list of priorities and you can't hold others responsible for that. If you can't live your life without approval of others, then you're sunk - you're stuck"in the loop".

There's nothing, whatsoever, wrong with being "sunk" or "stuck in the loop". Even if I, personally, perceve it as a small life and believe that no one would choose it if they understood what they were choosing, it would be utterly and profoundly irrelevant because "I" can't choose for "you". No one can. You're on your own. You can pay attention or not, as you choose.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Cinco 4 years ago
Cinco
Oops!Apparently, I failed to consider that "God + 1 choptick" being greater than God might confuse somebody. Let's put it this way: (500 + 1) > 500.
Posted by Cinco 4 years ago
Cinco
Wow! I got a point without even debating! Man, I LOVE the internet!!
Posted by Typhlochactas 4 years ago
Typhlochactas
Wiploc, you messed up your vote.
Posted by AlbinoBunny 4 years ago
AlbinoBunny
Typhlochactas, I'll accept a challange from you for the same debate of; 'It is more probable than not that a god exists.'

You'll need to provide definitions and rules though, as I'm new.
Posted by toolpot462 4 years ago
toolpot462
What's with the latin, bro?
Posted by Cinco 4 years ago
Cinco
False alarm. I've got my days and nights mixed up so I'm taking another day off to adjust - assuming I can sleep.
Posted by Cinco 4 years ago
Cinco
Back to work tomorrow (after the flu) but I'm there.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
TyphlochactasCincoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and arguments to pro as con has not refuted most pro's arguments and instead dropped them.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 4 years ago
KingDebater
TyphlochactasCincoTied
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: Quite obviously, arguments to Pro.
Vote Placed by rross 4 years ago
rross
TyphlochactasCincoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Just want to say to Con how much I like her style of argument. Very interesting, very readable. Unfortunately, the rules of the debate mean that she loses this. In particular, if you put new arguments in the final round, people can't consider them when voting. Also, Pro has burden of proof. This means that the debate is judged on whether his arguments stand up or not. If you ignore them, it counts as if you've conceded them. These are just formalities, though. If I could vote on preference for the arguments, I would definitely vote Con.
Vote Placed by medic0506 4 years ago
medic0506
TyphlochactasCincoTied
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: Pro put forth the only legitimate case, which was not refuted by Con.
Vote Placed by proglib 4 years ago
proglib
TyphlochactasCincoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: After rereading this, a point for conduct is all I think I'm able to award. And since Con is getting his butt kicked, and he cracked me up with his chopsticks argument, and I really think a bunch of great words are never going to make God any more or less probable, and...:D better stop before I get accused of vote bombing with only 1 point. :D
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
TyphlochactasCincoTied
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: Pro made arguments, and so met his burden of proof. Con's responses lacked lucidity and cogentcy.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
TyphlochactasCincoTied
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: Pro presented two reasonable arguments for the existance of a maximally great being. Con rebutted that "God + 1 Chopstick" would be greater than Pro's maximally great being, thus contradicting the definition of that being as maximally great. However, as Pro pointed out, Con failed to explain why "God + 1 Chopstick" is greater than "God". The assumption that more is always better is clearly false--a corvette + bird droppings is not better than a corvette! Sometimes, less is more. His final round arguments were quite cryptic and seemed rather irrelevant.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
TyphlochactasCincoTied
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: Con forfeited all the arguments except for one basing his entire rebuttal case on the hope that God plus chopstick invalidated Pros case. It didn't and thus Con lost the debate in spectacular colours. What a gambit. Shame it didn't pay.