The Instigator
GoOrDin
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheOregonian
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Not ebing able to find evidence does not mean that there is none

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 474 times Debate No: 87489
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

GoOrDin

Pro

Just because YOU Personally are unable to find evidence does not mean that evidence Does not exist.

Someone can not claim that, " There is NO evidence" of something. That is an arrogant not ignorant claim.

"To that which you are ignorant you shall not make claims."

This refers to all scientific method in evaluating anything from religion, chemistry and literature, to things like thieves and germs.

I call BIGOT on everyone who claims there is NO evidence God exists simply because they have not done what need to be done. I also call BIGOT on all those who claim there is no evidence to something because they can't personally Source the information on the Internet. LOL
TheOregonian

Con

I am a pragmatist. I view everything in practical terms. I do not care about what happens in theory, I care about reality.

There is a chance that evidence supporting God exists. There is a chance my entire life is a dream. There is a chance that a lot of things are true, but until I see evidence, I will not make assertions. God's existence is an assertion. A suspect's guiltiness is an assertion.

God's existence is the claim to be proven, not the other way around.

I claim that in practicality, no evidence for God exists, because none has come into my view. And for me, theory is just that- theory- and it has no affect on life.
Debate Round No. 1
GoOrDin

Pro

My Opponent is a Troll.

This debate is not about God. It is about he fact that, " someone cannot claim evidence does not exist because they have not heard of or seen it."

I move to have this debate reinitiated with someone who can read.
In fact. he's a bigot, and well on his way to being a tard.
stay in school kid.
TheOregonian

Con

I am not a troll. I am voicing my honest opinion.

YOU brought up God in saying, "I call BIGOT on everyone who claims there is NO evidence God exists". Religion/God is the best/ most applicable field this debate could be in reference to. I specified a topic for the sake of clarity in my argument. My statement, with "God and "religion" replaced with whatever subject is chosen, would work just the same. I am a pragmatist on all issues.

Please do not make assumptions. I can read very well, thank you very much, as you should have been able to notice through the fact that I responded to your argument.

Dictionary.com defines 'bigot' as
noun
1.
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

I am not being intolerant of your opinion. I am debating it via an example. In fact. I would have to say that you are being intolerant of mine.

Oh, and also: I am not a "tard". I am not on my way to becoming one, either. Retardation results from serious genetic disorders, most of which are noticeable from birth and of which, I have none.
Debate Round No. 2
GoOrDin

Pro

My opponent is required to Accept this claim and respond to it alone as the full thesis of his argument,

"Not being able to find evidence does not mean that there is none".

It is abhorrent arrogance to suggest that there is no evidence simply because you personally have not seen or FOUND any.
In such a case you, you have no right to assert that there is no evidence available.
It is idiocy to attest that evidence is non existent because you are ignorant to it.

My Opponent is required to address this Topic as his round one and two debate, so evaluate his arguments carefully, and we can anticipate that THAT alone is what he will respond to next. I have made my case.
TheOregonian

Con

Schrodinger's cat is a thought experiment that goes as follows: A cat is locked in a room where he has a fifty percent chance of dying in the next 30 minutes. If one waits that time, is the cat dead or alive? Schrodinger and Einstein, and the majority of scientists both in their era and since, agree that it is both. The cat exists in a quantum state of being both dead and alive, in equal proportions, until you open the door and find out.

If there was, say, a 2/3 chance that the cat would die, then the quantum state would be that much more dead than alive. The same applies to any probability.

Why does this matter? The way I see it, the evidence no one has yet found is less likely to exist than to not exist. This being applied to the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment, the evidence exists in a quantum state of existence and nonexistence, and is nonexistent more than it is existent.

To go back to the example you originally brought up, this means God exists in a state of combined nonexistence and existence. Depending on the trust one puts in the Bible (aka Faith), existence could hold more or less sway than nonexistence, and vice versa. But no matter what, there is always at least a little sliver of nonexistence and at least a little sliver of existence.

But back to what I said earlier: I am a pragmatist. I think that if no evidence has yet to be uncovered for any given claim, the probability is that none ever will. Ergo, there is no claim I view as true until I see evidence that supports it.

Thank you for a very fun, engaging, and entertaining debate. Please, though, try to be a little nicer and a little less bigoted.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
care to elaborate?
Posted by TheOregonian 1 year ago
TheOregonian
Upon reflection, I realize that you dismissed me due to a fallacy fallacy. And, I am disappointed no one voted.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
an example of what cannot be said to have no evidence simply because the accuser personally has not witnessed it. It was a valid example of incompetent reasoning.
Posted by JaanVahl 1 year ago
JaanVahl
Then why did you introduce that subject in the first place?
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
my opponent did not touch on the subject, he prioritized on the subject and made it the substance of debate he was arguing.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
listen to yourself. and then read the context/premise of the debate.
Posted by JaanVahl 1 year ago
JaanVahl
The existence of God is a debate just as is the existence of a thief or crime. To dismiss your opponent simply on the basis that he is a troll when he has, in fact provided a viable argument, is invalid in method. Are you not the exact type of person you claim your opponent to be, a bigot? You say the debate is not about god. That might be true, but why then, did you use the existence of god as an example if you did not want your opponent to touch on that subject?
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
No Bennett91. Saying there is no evidence when IN fact there may be, is arrogance and Bigotry.
Posted by jglass841 1 year ago
jglass841
The point is, there are many people looking for evidence for religion. There is none. No one can argue that there is.
Posted by Bennett91 1 year ago
Bennett91
Also the last sentences make no sense; so essentially being an atheist and asking for sources of data are acts of bigotry?
No votes have been placed for this debate.