The Instigator
HoosierPapi
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
Pricetag
Con (against)
Winning
70 Points

My Opponent cannot prove there is a god.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/7/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,578 times Debate No: 3547
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (32)

 

HoosierPapi

Pro

My opponent will not be able to prove the existence of God.

Proof, I might ad, is the absence of question. My opponent cannot prove there is a god by saying "faith is enough." Or "Mary Magdalene appeared on that piece of French Toast, therefore the is a god." Proof is not theory, proof is not innuendo or supposition, and proof is not opinion.

I eagerly await an opponent with incontrovertible proof that a god exists.
Pricetag

Con

Since you did not specify which God, I will take the roll of a pantheist:

The Universe is God. The Universe clearly exists by empirical observation. Thus God exists.
Debate Round No. 1
HoosierPapi

Pro

Thank you for taking this debate.

Alas, my opponent purports to cleverly argue the angle of pantheist. However, this position is flawed in two ways. First, pantheism is not an organized religion. While it has many followers, there is no formal hierarchy of organization, no international interconnection, no widely acknowledged or formally recognized organizational following by other religions, by governments of the world, or by the general population. I would submit that a majority of people around the world, while they are familiar with buddhism, catholicism, Judaism, etc. have never even heard of pantheism. Considering this lack of official status or structure, the question necessarily arises whether this belief structure can be legitimately applied to this debate. A vast majority of religious believers would likely say no.

Indeed, pantheists believe the Universe is God. However, this minority view is likewise not proveable. If you are indeed a pantheist (or even if you are not) it falls to you to prove that the Universe is indeed God. Can you do so?

I eagerly await my opponent's proof!
Pricetag

Con

Pricetag forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
HoosierPapi

Pro

HoosierPapi forfeited this round.
Pricetag

Con

First of all beemOr I'm not sure what you read in round two but the logic was completely absent from that argument. Either way, I appreciate you jumping to a conclusion before all the arguments are in, that was... special.

Hoosier you said:

"First, pantheism is not an organized religion. While it has many followers, there is no formal hierarchy of organization, no international interconnection, no widely acknowledged or formally recognized organizational following by other religions, by governments of the world, or by the general population. I would submit that a majority of people around the world, while they are familiar with buddhism, catholicism, Judaism, etc. have never even heard of pantheism. Considering this lack of official status or structure, the question necessarily arises whether this belief structure can be legitimately applied to this debate. A vast majority of religious believers would likely say no."

This argument has nothing to do with religion or the accuracy of it. You said that I cannot prove that there is a god, you never defined what that god is. You never specified and said it to be the Christian god or a specific god. You simply challenged me to prove that there is a noun named god. As a Pantheist I define the Universe as god. The Universe obviously exists by any empirical standard and since the Universe is god then logic would follow that God exists, as the Universe. Whether or not others are familiar with the idea of Pantheism or consider it an actual religion is not an issue. The only thing asked of me was to prove that there is a noun called god, I have clearly done that--the rest of your arguments don't matter.

Finally you said:

"Indeed, pantheists believe the Universe is god. However, this minority view is likewise not proveable. If you are indeed a pantheist (or even if you are not) it falls to you to prove that the Universe is indeed god. Can you do so?"

The Universe is god in that it is a noun that is called god. You never asked me to prove that an omnipotent, omniscient, intelligent being exists. You asked me to prove that god exists. I have proved that god exists as I have proved that there is a noun that is called god, that does exist. That was all that was required of me and that is what I did. Clearly I am the winner of this argument as I have proved this point. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SexyLatina 9 years ago
SexyLatina
Even though the two forfeits didn't really cancel out, we're going to say that they did, because for the part that he did debate, Pricetag won handily. Adding onto that, he won a nearly unwinnable topic. I'll add Pricetag to my List of People that Aren't Dumb.
Posted by Geekis_Khan 9 years ago
Geekis_Khan
It's not about what your definition is, it's about how you justify it. That's why I voted PRO.

But like you said, it doesn't matter anyway.
Posted by Pricetag 9 years ago
Pricetag
Again what's your definition of a God?

Well I guess I gave enough evidence for the voters.
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
And Pharoahs were not gods, they simply claimed to be. You're retarded if you think they actually WERE.
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
Exactly, CON's argument relies on already accepting Pantheism as truth. Only if pantheism is taken as true can the universe be equated with god. And CON never backed up pantheism.
Posted by Geekis_Khan 9 years ago
Geekis_Khan
You still gave no justification as to why your definition should be accepted, and you never proved why the Universe is God.
Posted by Pricetag 9 years ago
Pricetag
Thank you for responding.

I disagree, I used a technical point but I still addressed the topic and succeeded in doing what he challenged me to.

Not necessarily, although that was only one of my points, have no intrinsic value, that is true, and since my opponent was very vague in his opening point I capitalized on that and spun it around on him. If he would have said prove to me that there is an omniscient, omnipotent being I would not have even took the debate. However, since he opened with such a broad statement I was able to prove my side.

pan·the·ism
–noun 1. the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God's personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature.
2. any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe.(http://dictionary.reference.com...)

The term pantheism is a broad term also, as you can see by definition two. Remember a God can be anything, the emperor of Japan was a God, the Pharaohs were Gods, because people believed them to be Gods. The universe is God because some believe them to be as such. Also as I'm sure you'll agree that the physical laws govern all and you would be hard pressed to find anything that can defy the laws of nature. In this way the universe is omniscient (its everywhere) and it controls all. Even by some of the classical definitions I could make a case that the universe is God.

By nihilism no debate would matter because you can't really prove anything; however, as I stated by all empirical standards you can prove that the universe exists. This is more than enough, I believe, to prove the existence of it.

There are multiple definitions and as how my opponent was not specific I did not feel the need to prove the divinity of it. If he had challenged me to prove the existence of a divine being, I wouldn't have take the debate.
Posted by Geekis_Khan 9 years ago
Geekis_Khan
Pricetag, sorry for getting back to your question so late.

Anyways, you admit that you won this based off of a technicality. right there I would vote against you, because it's really going around the topic.

Second, using your standards, I could define anything as God, and say that it exists. There needs to be some justification for why we should accept that your definition is the one we should accept. Saying that the Universe is God does not prove it is God.

Third, a Pantheist doesn't simply view the Universe as God, he views it as divine. You did not prove that the Universe is, in fact, divine.

Fourth, (and this is a nihilistic argument, which, for the sake of debate, I wouldn't have voted off of unless it became an issue in the round), you have not proven that the Universe exists.

But what you essentially did was define a certain entity as God, without proving that it is God. You failed to prove any divinity in the Universe.

That's why I voted PRO.
Posted by Lara.S 9 years ago
Lara.S
Is there a "god"? Yes, I've seen lots of them, here and there, often on TV. In fact, I saw the "Godfather." That means, since a god has a father, then there must be a god.
Posted by Lara.S 9 years ago
Lara.S
Is there a "god"? Yes, I've seen lots of them, here and there, often on TV. In fact, I saw the "Godfather." That means, since a god has a father, then there must be a god.
32 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by aaronr8684 9 years ago
aaronr8684
HoosierPapiPricetagTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Vote Placed by littlelacroix 9 years ago
littlelacroix
HoosierPapiPricetagTied
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 
Vote Placed by SexyLatina 9 years ago
SexyLatina
HoosierPapiPricetagTied
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 
Vote Placed by repete21 9 years ago
repete21
HoosierPapiPricetagTied
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 
Vote Placed by attrition 9 years ago
attrition
HoosierPapiPricetagTied
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 
Vote Placed by WeaponE 9 years ago
WeaponE
HoosierPapiPricetagTied
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 
Vote Placed by draxxt 9 years ago
draxxt
HoosierPapiPricetagTied
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 
Vote Placed by riclanda 9 years ago
riclanda
HoosierPapiPricetagTied
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 
Vote Placed by Quarknugget 9 years ago
Quarknugget
HoosierPapiPricetagTied
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 
Vote Placed by pmagyar 9 years ago
pmagyar
HoosierPapiPricetagTied
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