The Instigator
BradK
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
baus
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

It's More Likely That God Was Made Up, Rather Than Naturally Observed

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 3 votes the winner is...
baus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 897 times Debate No: 55364
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (47)
Votes (3)

 

BradK

Pro

Terms and Conditions of the Debate:

(1)First round is for acceptance and demonstrating that you understand the resolution. If you do not explain the resolution in your own words in round 1 and satisfactorily demonstrate to me that you understand the resolution, the debate will not take place and I win by default.

(2)This debate is not concerned with philosophical possibilities. It is possible to conceive of a planet run by hobgoblins, where gravity is stronger than electromagnetism, but the ability to conceive of that scenario does mean that humankind should automatically have an interest in such a possibility and invest research in anti-hobgoblin weaponry. Likewise, just because you can conceive of god, does not mean that humankind should take interest in the ramifications of the existence of such a thing. There has been no evidence for god that has satisfied the scientific community of cosmologists, and in accepting the debate, you accept this.

(3)You shall not misuse the word "evidence". Within this debate, to be clear, the word evidence means "repeatable quantifiable observation, such as measuring the weight of a stone or the charge of an electron". A personal anecdote, such as "I was overwhelmed by the power of god", will not be considered evidence of anything other than your supposed emotional state.

(4)It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god. Using the statement "it is impossible to prove god exists", or "it is impossible to prove god doesn't exist", is not a valid argument within this debate.

(5)"God" shall be defined as in this quote from George Carlin, from Con's round 1 until the end of the debate:

If it's true that we're all from the center of a star (every atom in each of us from the center of a star) then we're all the same thing; even a coke machine or a cigarette butt in the street in buffalo is made out of atoms that came from a star. They've all been recycled thousands of times as have you and I. And therefore, it's only ME out there, so what is there to be afraid of? What is there that needs solace seeking? Nothing. There's nothing to be afraid of because it's all us. The trouble is we have been separated by being born and given a name and an identity and being individuated. We've been separated from the oneness and that's what religion exploits; that people have this yearning to be part of the overall "one" again. So they exploit that, they call it "god", they say he has rules, and I think it's cruel. I think you can do it absent from religion.

If you think there is a man-like, all-powerful deity in the sky, or some other unexplored region of existence, you cannot refer to him as "God" (starting from Con1's round 1 until the end of the debate), instead you must refer to him as "The Creator of the Universe", "The thing that listens to our prayers, evaluates the morality of our life, and sends our consciousness to some unexplored region of existence following death", or anything else that specifically describes what you are trying to get at.

---

Here I shall explain the resolution in my own words, using my analogy with Bigfoot:

The origin of Bigfoot, as far as we can scientifically be certain, was that a man saw something move through the bushes and to make up for the lack of sensory perception, he superstitiously assumed that it was a tall, ape-like beast capable of mutilating him to death (the brain can imagine things that aren't there, refer to the image below. Do you fear the rocks? Why?). He described his encounter with other people, and then other people’s brains started doing the same thing, except they hadn’t even seen the thing in the bushes, they just heard the bewildered woodsman describe his close encounter with an unknown object.




My argument is that God has the same kind of origins as Bigfoot. No one really knows who the first man was to say “There’s a God in the sky who created everything and has almighty power over us all”, but no such being has actually been observed (just like no Bigfoot has ever been observed). One of our ancestors was probably out in a field and saw lightning, and his brain incorrectly filled in the rest. It was just a static discharge, but our ancestor thought it was an angry man in the sky hurling blazing arrows down at earth. This is the most likely origin of the conception of a powerful being that sits above us, created everything, and has complete control over all of us.

I ask you to explain the resolution in your own words in round 1 as well.

---

Accept the debate only if you accept the terms and conditions. I expect an honest, clean debate.
baus

Con

I accept.

I will be assuming that observations needn't be objectively true and that to make something up requires the intention of presenting a known lie to oneself as truth to others.

Under this understanding of the resolution's terms I shall be defending the position that it is more likely that people mistakenly observed what they thought to be a god rather than intentionally made this being up and intentionally lied to others.

The definition of observe I will be resting my case upon will be this:
Notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 1
BradK

Pro

Thank you for accepting the offer to debate.

However, you are attempting to take the pro side of the debate, not the con side. I know that you are just looking for a clean debate, so I forgive you for that mistake.

---

For example, when you said "I will be assuming that observations needn't be objectively true", an example of that would be the image above which I will refer to as "stoneman". We see a man's face, but objectively there is no man there, it's just an assortment of stones. Assume for a moment, you are one of our superstitious homo sapien ancestors living in the plains of Africa, and you aren't on the top of the food chain. If you saw something like "stoneman", you would run in fear to ensure your safety. No matter whether "stoneman" can kill you or not, running from him will ensure your survival. You aren't certain if approaching him is safe; superstition is evolutionarily advantageous.

Obviously, you (the ancestor) just made up the idea of "stoneman", because really there is no such thing. It would make sense, from an evolutionary survival point of view, to tell your friends to watch out for "stoneman". You, the ancestor, have made something up without attempting to intentionally lie to others.

I am afraid that when you said "to make something up requires the intention of presenting a known lie to oneself as truth to others.", you were mistaken.

---

When you said "I shall be defending the position that it is more likely that people mistakenly observed what they thought to be a god rather than intentionally made this being up and intentionally lied", did you realize this is my side in the debate? I didn't explicitly say "religious people are not purpousfully telling a dirty lie", but if you read and understood round 1, you'd see that I'm not accusing any Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or Christian of lying. I'm accusing them of hanging on to ancient superstitions.

So, I thank you for your effort but you are trying to stand on my side of the debate.

---

Now, if you wish to have this debate, I kindly appreciate the challenge from you. You must debate that there is "evidence" for anything that resembles one of the various interpretations of the powerful being worshipped in every theistic religion. Just as an example, you could show how it was impossible for the Qur'an to be written by anything that has ever lived on planet earth. Or you could show why it would be an absolute contradiction for civilization to be where it is today, if Jesus didn't die on the cross 2000 years ago and come back to life. Up to you how you do it.

---

So again, I appreciate the offer for the challenge. Here is the resolution you are arguing in favour of:

"It's more likely that there was a natural observation/measurement only explainable by the existence of a god, rather than said natural observation/measurement being explainable by 'filling in'".

("filling in" refers to the brain making up information rather than observing it. "Stoneman" only exists because the brain fills in.)
baus

Con

Let me make this very clear. You cannot rewrite a resolution in round two of a debate. You should lose conduct marks for even trying to do it.

Pro claims that the resolution I am arguing in favor of is:

It's more likely that there was a natural observation/measurement only explainable by the existence of a god, rather than said natural observation/measurement being explainable by 'filling in'.

Errors with this resolution:

#1 This is not at all the resolution I am arguing in favor of. The word 'measurement' nowhere in the original resolution and has absolutely no relevance to this debate.

#2 This has nothing to do with whether on not god was explained by 'filling in', the original resolution does not refer to this at all.

#3 This is not a question of whether or not god was the only explanation, it is a question of whether god was observed or not.

Thus, I negate this new resolution on those three grounds.

My opponent demands that I supply objective evidence for the existence of a Theistic god. Not only doe she fail to clarify which God he is referring to, leaving me wondering what evidence I should be searching for. Additionally, he fails to realize that absolutely no objectively verifiable evidence whatsoever is required for one to make a natural observation.

He also fallaciously claims that I am standing for his side of the debate, this is supported by zero explanation of evidence on his part and shall be negated using the same extent of proof.

My opponent concedes that religious people are not purposefully telling a lie. This means he concedes that God was not made up.

'Made up' is the past tense of 'make up' I shall now observe almost all of the definitions of 'make up' available on the the Free Dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

1. To put together; construct or compose: make up a prescription.
If God was constructed or composed, this requires the intent of the composer to 'invent' something that didn't already exist.

2. To constitute; form: Ten years make up a decade.
This would mean that God would have to constitute something greater.

3.
a. To alter one's appearance for a role on the stage, as with a costume and cosmetics.
This requires intent to deceive

b. To apply cosmetics.
This means that God wore cosmetics.

4. To devise as a fiction or falsehood; invent: made up an excuse.
This was negated by my opponent's concession that god was not intentionally devised.

5.
a. To make good (a deficit or lack): made up the difference in the bill.
This requires intent to make up for something that is lost. God doesn't do this and if my opponent chooses to prove that God does, I am willing to disprove it.

b. To compensate for: make up for lost time.
I don't see how God makes up for lost time.

6. To resolve a quarrel: kissed and made up.
My opponent concedes that God was not intentionally invented for an ulterior motive so this is negated by Pro's assertion.

7. To make ingratiating or fawning overtures. Used with to: made up to his friend's boss.
I am not sure how God could fit this definition.

8. To take (an examination or course) again or at a later time because of previous absence or failure.
This, again, has no relevance to God.

9. To set in order: make up a room.
God isn't set in order, I would like to see proof of this.

10. Printing To select and arrange material for: made up the front page.
This is possibly true of God in the Bible, but the question is which is more likely and someone observing God is more likely.

Now I shall run through the available definition of 'naturalistic observation':
http://psychology.about.com...
Naturalistic observation differs from structured observation in that it involves looking at a behavior as it occurs in its natural setting with no attempts at intervention on the part of the researcher.

God very much could fit that definition. He appears to control certain events via miracles and perhaps makes people see curses and blessings before their eyes that they did not intervene to produce.

If this isn't what my opponent was referring to, I would like them to supply their own definitions. As I said in round one, to observe requires no objective verification of the observation.
Debate Round No. 2
BradK

Pro

I was going to clear this up in the comments, but I'll do it here for sake of organization.

You have a confusion. You should read over this whole debate more carefully. There's no coherence in it. Look, answer this: should we be disagreeing with each other, or should we be debating?

---

Please, understand what I'm saying. Here's my resolution:

P1 = "It's More Likely That God Was Made Up, Rather Than Naturally Observed"

Here's the negative of that:

P2 = "It's more likely that there was a natural observation/measurement only explainable by the existence of a god, rather than said natural observation/measurement being explainable by 'filling in'."

P1 = not(P2)

---

We need to go back to basics, on what a resolution is, and what it means to be "con" or "pro". If the resolution is P1, then I'm pro and you are con. If the resolution is P2, then I am con and you are pro. Both cases are equivalent. Does that make sense? Please let me know if it makes sense.

---

We can't have a debate if we don't at least agree on something. I'm your buddy here, I'm not your enemy. I'm trying to help you out. If you say things like "He also fallaciously claims that I am standing for his side of the debate", then that worries me. It shows me that we aren't even having basic reliable communication with each other.

And also, if you don't know what I mean by certain words or phrases, ASK ME. Don't ask a dictionary. The dictionary didn't say it, I DID. I'm the one you should be asking for definitions of things I said. Make a comment and ask me a question, and I'll elaborate for you on what I mean by "made up". This dictionary looking up thing has to stop. Ask me about my own words. If you look for translations of "made up" in the dictionary and start using those, as if I was the one who wrote the dictionary, it's equivocation. ASK ME what MY WORDS mean. I'm just emphasizing to help you make it clear. Remember, I'm your buddy, not your enemy. It's a debate, not a fight.
baus

Con

My opponent has ignored all of my arguments and left every single one of them undisputed. He has also not clarified why he conceded in round two that "I didn't explicitly say "religious people are not purpousfully telling a dirty lie", but if you read and understood round 1, you'd see that I'm not accusing any Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or Christian of lying. I'm accusing them of hanging on to ancient superstitions." This is admitting that they didn't make it up. Every single definition of making up does not apply to God.

Now, this nonsensical flipping of the resolution to make me oppose some 'filling in' is completely unjustified and is not the original resolution being debated. I am not going to tittle tattle about such irrational manner of altering a debate half way through it.

Now I shall answer the questions given to me by Pro in round 3.

Q: If the resolution is P1, then I'm pro and you are con. If the resolution is P2, then I am con and you are pro. Both cases are equivalent. Does that make sense?

A: No; it does not make sense to me. P2 is nothing to do with this debate at all.

Now I shall terminate your round 3 arguments one by one.

Termination:

#1
Arg: We can't have a debate if we don't at least agree on something. I'm your buddy here, I'm not your enemy. I'm trying to help you out. If you say things like "He also fallaciously claims that I am standing for his side of the debate", then that worries me.

Reb: This is irrelevant to the debate, please stick to the resolution.

#2
Arg: And also, if you don't know what I mean by certain words or phrases, ASK ME. Don't ask a dictionary. The dictionary didn't say it, I DID. I'm the one you should be asking for definitions of things I said.

Reb: You can twist what you said any way you wish, the dictionary is there so that we can't change the English language to suit our needs in the debate. If you are not debating in English, then please state the language you are debating in otherwise I shall assume that an English dictionary should suffice for clarification on what you are debating. You requested in round one that "I ask you to explain the resolution in your own words in round 1 as well." and so I did this and now you are throwing a tantrum about it.

#3
Arg: This dictionary looking up thing has to stop. Ask me about my own words. If you look for translations of "made up" in the dictionary and start using those, as if I was the one who wrote the dictionary, it's equivocation.

Reb: Why are you a better source of definition than the dictionary itself? Are you suggesting that the people who observed God are a better source of information than the science textbooks you are resting your case upon?

#4
Arg: Remember, I'm your buddy, not your enemy. It's a debate, not a fight.

Reb: Alright buddy, please forfeit this debate for me. Thanks buddy.
Debate Round No. 3
BradK

Pro

If you didn't know what I meant by "made up", you shouldn't have accepted the debate. You should have asked me to clarify what I meant. I did not mean that theists are deliberately lying. What I said was, theists didn't get the idea of god scientifically. They made it up, just like the story of bigfoot was made up.
baus

Con

Bigfoot is not god. The situation is completely non-analogous and I am yet to see how on Earth they are comparable. Pro never ever explained the link between the tow and baseless asserted that the falsehood of Bigfoot confirmed the falsehood of God. It most certainly does not!

I went through every definition of 'made up' and explain how not even one of them could apply to God. every single definition's inability to link with God was left undisputed by Pro for the rest of the debate.

My definition of observed, even in the naturalized sense, was also left undisputed who offered no alternative definition whatsoever and made up some random nonsense that he did not offer any reputable source for.

Pro conceded that there was no intentional deception involved with God and I proved how this leads to the conclusion that God was observed. Pro never successfully refuted this in the slightest.

The entirety of Pro's debate has been a baseless assertion that if Bigfoot is not real then neither is God and throwing a tantrum about me supplying the definitions that he actually requested Con to supply in round one.

I conclude that it is not more likely that God was made up, rather than naturally observed.

Thank you very much for having the patience to read this rather unstimulating debate.
Debate Round No. 4
47 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
God loves you, even if you pretend He is not there.
Posted by BradK 2 years ago
BradK
Don't worry, at this point any shortcoming of yours to understand ANYTHING I will gladly explain by immaturity or confusion. I'm okay if you have either, and won't be bothered by it.
Posted by baus 2 years ago
baus
Don't ask me if I understand if you can't take no for an answer.
Posted by BradK 2 years ago
BradK
Of course you don't, you lying, cheating, dishonest debater. I gave you a set of terms in the beginning, namely "re-iterate the resolution to my satisfaction before the debate takes place, else there shall be no debate". And you failed to get my approval on your understanding of the resolution before proceeding as if the resolution meant what you *thought* it meant.

So I did not enjoy the debate, I do not wish to debate with you again.
Posted by baus 2 years ago
baus
No I don't.
Posted by BradK 2 years ago
BradK
I think you are just trying to get under my skin. If that's the case, you fail.

If you are genuinely believing that I'll try and "define cheating" so that I can accuse you of it, then you are ignorant of the fact that should I do so, I'd be a blatant hypocrite. I'd be a hypocrite because I accused you of changing the definitions of words to suit your goal, and then *I* turned around and (ironically) redefined one of my own words to suit my goal.

So no, I'm not going to "redefine cheating". I'm accusing you of redefining words. And that's exactly what you've done and I am really effing tired of explaining to you what was originally meant by the phrase "made up".

For god sakes, do you understand what was meant by it?
Posted by baus 2 years ago
baus
I don't think we have the same definition of cheating but if I define that you'll say I cheated by defining cheating. -.-
Posted by BradK 2 years ago
BradK
I've already told you what you were cheating about. You used equivocation on the resolution. That's cheating. "Made up" does not mean "knowingly fabricate a lie", it means "superstitiously assume the existence of something to err on the side of caution.".

THAT is how you were cheating.
Posted by baus 2 years ago
baus
*me cheating
Posted by baus 2 years ago
baus
I am not cheating at all. Please elaborate on be cheating.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
BradKbausTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: It's More Likely That God Was Made Up, Rather Than Naturally Observed. Let's break that down. The word "Rather" implies one of comparison, so this debate was about comparing two ideas. What two ideas? That a "God" of some sort was made up, and that said "God" was naturally observed. Of course, we don't know what that "God" is, or how I should regard evidence of one deity versus another, which leads this to be vague, but that's not the main problem. The problem is that neither side can agree on their position. In the end, I end up agreeing with Con, because as I see it, the resolution forces Pro to argue that "It's More Likely That God Was Made Up," as that is the positive statement being affirmed in the resolution, whereas it is Con's burden to argue that said "God" was "Naturally Observed." It was an issue with grammar, and Pro clarified (somewhat) in R2, but too late. Not the debate I was hoping to see.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
BradKbausTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Semantics aside. Pro had the BOP here and he provided almost no premises to support his conclusion that god is more likely made up ether than naturally observed. Based on that fact alone pro loses arguments. However I'd urge pro to define words important to the debate immediately to keep future debates on course. It actually did look like pro changed the definition of made up in later rounds. I wouldn't normally think this, but he actually changed it to be almost identical to the phrase naturally observed.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
BradKbausTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro started off giving a resolution, without definitions. Con, though he accepted the debate, spent his of his argument attacking the resolution, instead of proving that God was more likely naturally observed. In this way, he ignored the topic and started arguing about Pro's conduct and sided with Pro. I'm leaning more to Pro for arguments because Con did not provide evidence for the God to have been more likely observed. However, I'll give Con the source point because Pro had none besides his George Carlin quote.