The Instigator
Jacobbruce
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
SJM
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

No one can prove or disprove the existence of god?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 826 times Debate No: 101382
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (1)

 

Jacobbruce

Pro

I believe it's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god.
SJM

Con

I"m first going to clarify some things that I feel are essential. I also assume this is an acceptance round.

Observation 1: The burden of proof is shared, I don"t think an explanation is needed unless requested.

Proof: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

https://www.merriam-webster.com...

Impossible: incapable of being or of occurring

https://www.merriam-webster.com...

God: a person or thing of supreme value

https://www.merriam-webster.com...

Existence: being with respect to a limiting condition or under a particular aspect

https://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Jacobbruce

Pro

Here's some reasons as to why I believe no one can prove or disprove the existence of God:

1.Humans will never have the cognitive capacity to directly understand anything with infinite powers or qualities.

2.Humans will never have intellectual reasons to indirectly demonstrate the existence or non-existence of anything with infinite powers or qualities.

3.There are only two ways to prove God does or doesn't exist: direct understanding or indirect demonstration
SJM

Con

In response to 1, we aren"t trying to understand something of infinite powers or qualities, the definition of God specifically calls into question something of supreme value. Something can be supreme without being infinite.

In response to 2, how much intellectual reason do we have? How much intellectual reason to we need? I don"t see how pro can demonstrate to us how much intellectual reason we have, and whether it crosses the threshold of being able to prove God exists. And we again aren"t talking about anything with infinite powers or qualities.

In response to 3, I will agree to this if it encompasses logical proofs and evidence beyond doubt.

Since what I"ve said goes uncontested (Definitions and Observation), it"s extended as true throughout the next rounds.

Proof of the existence of God, put forward by a human.

1. Every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is a transcendent, personal being.
3. The universe is a contingent thing.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe is a transcendent, personal being.

And second argument
1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
7. Therefore, God exists.
Debate Round No. 2
Jacobbruce

Pro

The universe can't be a contingent thing because if it was it'd have to be a person.

Contingent: a group of people united by some common feature, forming part of a larger group.
Source:

Your second argument is a paradox because while all those things are true, the fact that a maximally great being exists in some possible world can't be used as evidence that a maximally great being exists in THIS world. This is similar to what's known as the raven paradox:

1. Ravens are black
2. Everything that isn't black isn't a raven
3. Green apples aren't black, therefore a green apple isn't a raven.
4. Therefore green apples are proof ravens are black.

This is of course a paradox because you can't use green apples to prove ravens are black, just like how you can't use the fact that a maximally great being(God) COULD exist to prove that a maximally great being(God) DOES exist.
SJM

Con

Ok, so we disagree on the definition, so I"ll provide a counter definition. And before you call me out on what I did to you, i gave you a chance to contest it, and you didn"t. I even said in the comments if you disagree with the definition I provided then just say so. But the definitions and observation went uncontested (conceded). Right now I"m contesting your definition with

Contingent- dependent for existence, occurrence, character, etc., on something not yet certain; conditional (often followed by on or upon):

Source- http://www.dictionary.com...

I also included my source, so that point should go to me. Also following my definition, your refutation of my argument isn"t successful.

"Your second argument is a paradox because while all those things are true, the fact that a maximally great being exists in some possible world can't be used as evidence that a maximally great being exists in THIS world. "

It can be used as evidence if it"s just logically true and of logical necessity. Also what is paradoxical about it? What about an entity existing in some world paradoxical with it existing in this world?

You also mischaracterized my argument. My argument that a maximally great being exists in some possible worlds, and therefore every world, is because of the fact that its maximal greatness entails it to do so. For example, if someone were perfect, perfection entails in being everywhere or else they would be incomplete and imperfect.
Debate Round No. 3
Jacobbruce

Pro

I apologize for misunderstanding your argument.

Even though it's possible for a maximally great being to exist in some world, that doesn't mean it DOES exist in some possible world.

Here's an example:
If I flip a coin, it's possible for it to land heads up. That doesn't mean that it WILL land heads up if I flip it.
SJM

Con

Since this is the last round, I will demonstrate to the audience why I have won this debate. In the last round I explicitly said that the argument about contingency, was NOT successfully refuted. If it"s not addressed, then it"s conceded. This concession means that my claim that the argument wasn"t successfully refuted, means my argument is still standing as viable to the debate. My argument does pass the criteria of being made by human, and also proving the existence of god.

I win the debate here, and it"s not necessary to address the second argument as long as one set of proofs prove my side of the resolution.

My set of proofs was cold conceded, and is now extended as true.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
A god is disproven when you have proven no god..The green monster under my bed is disproven when I have not proven that there is a green monster under my bed....
Posted by Enferno 1 year ago
Enferno
Edits, because this site doesn't have edit functions for comments.*grumble grumble*

Composed a vote near 1k characters. Find out I have to do other stuff to vote after I typed it up and hit cast my vote.
Too much effort to do. Some of my thoughts in comments.
Posted by Enferno 1 year ago
Enferno
Composed a vote near 1k characters. Find out I have to do other stuff to vote after I typed it up and hit cast my vote.

I think Con won because of the definition given by them, even though the definition is very questionable in meaning.
This allowed them to carry the earlier rounds but were weaker in later rounds because of the Onto. argument counterargument.
The Contingency argument being missed does not mean the argument is accepted by Con as proof of god but rather that Pro did not address it.

Also, God was defined as 'person or thing of supreme value'
but the Onto. argument goes and has 'maximally great being' as a definition of god, conflicts of definition arise.
Does "person or thing of supreme value' = 'maximally great being'?
If they do not, a problem occurs in logic.

If 'person or thing of supreme value'= 'maximally great being' problem:

It was pointed out in R2 that "Something can be supreme without being infinite" by Con.

If 'infinite power or qualities' are not a requirement of 'being or thing of supreme value', why is it a 'maximally great being' requires the ability to exist in every possible world?

If the phrases mean two different things, then the definition of God that was established by Con has changed for that argument and now Con is working with two different definitions of God.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
The first issue of separation created takes place regarding laws passed in legislation on parenting a child, as GOD has been claimed by religion, in writing to be a parent, The father of a deity and this accusation has legal consequence and cost not just religious, and therefore this process must be allowed to be denied or confirmed, and legally tested allowed to take place with honor. As to allow GOD to be represented in such a way, it could be cleared of described accusations placed against it, an established and equally represented GOD. Meaning the exact process that insures GOD as father, and the way this achievement occurs may provide a defense from accusations made public which include but are not limited to rape and sexual assault.

Here Again a mathematical Axiom is such a representation that can be made. One nation Under GOD( a guide to the common deferense, 2017) a written visual Cite that can be seen. As principles involving mathematics can be very complicated to understand.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
Evidence beyond doubt is not a reasonable request to be placed on any person, as a person is capable of doubting facts and time must be provided to learn. The point of the debate is to prove two things, not one, GOD. Con spent all resources explaining one side of the argument.
I do not believe that the debate is indeed based on facts, but reluctantly voted for Pro anyway. Both judicially and scientifically GOD can be Proved and Disproved. The fact of this argument is simple, representation. Why is representation a fact to justify dispute? It is the fact GOD has been publicly accused of the crime of "Murder. "This means that the accused has a right to representation before any Constitutional judicial Separation regardless of personal opinion of how existence is provided, as long as it is provided.

There is more.

Once an accusation of murder is recognized in a way that is disputable publicly, by two sides, those who are disputing crime openly, are then in fact part of the crime being argued and can be separation in an honorable fashion before law. A resolution provided by basic forms of separation.

If GOD does not show as evidence or witness to both sides the outcome is different than just one side. It does not matter if representation is made only by one side, but the one side has condition to represent in a transferable fashion. Meaning instruction that can be given to others to then make the same representation to any others as needed to be reasonable. Although after a decision is made, a second GOD appeared, at arrival the addition GOD can file a motion of appeal to receive equal representation. This process is mimicked by the scientific method.
Posted by C_e_e 1 year ago
C_e_e
For the God topic, the habituated "normal" standard is not to expect confirmability. Usually, unconfirmability prompts people"s suspicions of falsity. But, rather than unconfirmable notions gaining their proper weight during evaluations of likely truth or falsity, for topics such as God, Heaven, or Hell the habituated "normal" is not to expect confirmability. That habituated "normal" should be seen for what it is -- abnormal! Mr. Jacobbruce do not accept, unquestioningly, that pronouncements about what a god wants, or how a god is cannot be shown to be matters of facts. Let that arouse your suspicions of falsity, rather than accept it as being appropriate.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
The paradox in the debate is when only a proof of GOD is presumed. It is describing a distance that is defined by two clearly stated points. A separation can be made between two points or it can be shaped to create a State of Idea. No person "can prove", and no person "can disprove" GOD becomes semantic. This action is not true and might describes a tyranny, To Note it is the same tyranny that is created as a confession in the word abortion. This might be exposed publicly as a pattern.

The United States Constitution allows disproving GOD possible, as a call for representation has in fact already been created, Justification of representation takes no other reason than a public accusation of a crime. The task then for representation is separation, from either accusation, confession, or if necessary both. The right to judicial separation by Constitution insures a person can do so in an honorably way, that can be both witnessed and documented for posterity. Without violence. The simple process of impartial separation is constructed by mere human intellect as a test. The God that is disproved is the God that cannot be represented in a manner that can be understood with reason before the judicial separation. The separation process would in fact yield for a GOD almighty to self-represent. This is actually a point of note, the Bible among many compilations of religious literature in fact places the burden of guilt on GOD.

This creates justification for an agent of representation that can by fact answer the public accusation made against GOD before a court of law for judicial separation, under protection of the Court. The separation process establishes a right to existence with privacy through a governing nation and order of law bound by United Constitution of State. Religion is not just a public tool of discovery for profit as often described.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
All of this does not mean Pro is wrong by only admitting publicly of being incapable of make the separation process, explaining a Constitution stigma to Pro, the basic principle in the Statement "No one can prove or disprove existence of," is just missing the one component of enforcement to become a tyranny. There is no need to ask for definition of GOD, there is only a right for judicial separation for equal protection and documentation of a GOD Stated. Which may explain reasonably why there is a limit on the information and it not reach all people.

GOD cannot legally be contained by definition to just a religious discretion without breaking the law.
Posted by romanpiso 1 year ago
romanpiso
The first question to ask is "which God"? If it is the God of the Bible, then the only 'proof' for that God is biblical literature and the ideological concepts presented within it. If, the Bible can be proven false, then the God presented in it should also be proven false. This has already been done. The God in Genesis was the Pharaoh who founded the 12th Dynasty in Egypt, playing the part of that God. He was, as Pharaoh, a god.

How & Why Ancient Royalty Created Facades & Illusions
[The Effective Creation of an Alternate Version of Reality]
http://www.academia.edu...

Three Major Religions Of Today Were Created By Ancient Royalty
http://www.academia.edu...

The Beginnings Of Christianity & The Evolution Of Popes
http://www.academia.edu...
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
Or at the least show both of you opportunity to explain your position in detail. Good luck.
Sorry did not mean to become a distraction.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
JacobbruceSJMTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Evidence beyond doubt is not a reasonable request to be placed on any person, as a person is capable of doubting facts and time must be provided to learn. The point of the debate is to prove two things and not one thing GOD. Con spent all resources explaining one side of the argument. I do not believe that the debate is indeed fact but reluctantly voted for Pro. Both judicially and scientifically GOD, can be Proved and disproved. The fact of this argument is simple, Representation. Why is representation this is fact? It is that GOD has been publicly accused of the crime of ?Murder ?and thus has a right to representation before any Constitutional judicial Separation regardless of personal opinion. Religion is one of the toughest debate and you both made a great effort.