The Instigator
Bound_Up
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MagicAintReal
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Nothing suggests theism must be true

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...
MagicAintReal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 282 times Debate No: 86154
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

Bound_Up

Pro

Let the respondent define "God" as they believe in him/her/it.

For example, if for you "God" = an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being of love and creation, then the topic shall be argued as

"Nothing suggests there must be an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being of love and creation."

Let's keep it clear and accessible, snappy and to the point.

To give us some meat to work with right off the bat, I'll address some common arguments for the evidence of God (as conceived by mainstream theism).

1 - "Some day, you'll realize that all of this (gestures to the world, to the universe, and to the order and majesty they display) could not have just happened by itself."

Suppose I realize that. Where should I go from there?
If I believe that something must have caused the universe, what do I know about the cause?

Should I suppose that it still exists today? Why? On what evidence?
You see, I can get to this point, and still have all my work ahead of me.

2 - "I have felt God's presence, his influence, his guidance."

Here we distinguish observation from inference. You have had powerful spiritual experiences, you have personally observed them.
To claim that their origin is supernatural, though, is an inference, not an observation.

Not all unusual or powerful human experiences can be supernatural. If I have one, how do I know if it's supernatural or just natural?

3 - "People are healed by God. Prayers are answered, miracles happen, people survive or are healed who wouldn't have otherwise."

Say the odds of recovering from a disease are one in a million. Someone recovers anyway, and people claim this as proof of God.

Well, if the odds are one in a million, it's bound to happen after a million tries, yah? Even if there is no God, one in a million things still happen every million times or so, just by chance, by statistics.
It's a world of seven billion people, and some pretty crazy one out of seven billion coincidences are bound to happen, without any supernatural intervention.

These improbable events would only be evidence for God if they happened MORE often than they should, more often than they would by chance alone.
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks Pro for this interesting debate.

1. Definitions.

Pro has allowed for me to define god, and, since Pro did not supply a definition for theism and theism is a major constituent of the resolution, I will also supply a definition for theism.

theism - belief in the existence of a god or gods.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

god - a deity.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

So, now the resolution should read:
"Nothing suggests that there must be a deity."

I also feel like I should explain my theism, antithetical to what you may read in my profile, because my definition of god was not very expansive.

You see, I'm what people call a heliolater, because I practice heliolatry by worshiping the sun; the sun is in fact the deity in my theism.

heliolotry - worship of the sun.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

2. Pro's points.

I, like Pro, wish to keep it snappy and to the point, so I'll follow his "meat to work with right off the bat."

Pro says:
"If I believe that something must have caused the universe, what do I know about the cause?"

My response:
Well, NASA has measured the cosmic microwave background radiation, of the observable universe, and we ow have a very clear picture of our universe's origins being the big bang.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

There's something that you know about the cause Pro.

Pro continues:
"Should I suppose that it still exists today? Why? On what evidence?
You see, I can get to this point, and still have all my work ahead of me."

My response:
The big bang occurred ~13.7 billion years ago, and the universe is currently expanding, but I think it would be dishonest to say that the big bang exists today...it was a past event.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So, hopefully there's not too much work ahead of Pro.

In my theism, I have felt god's presence and influence, every time I've gone outside on a godly day.

So Pro says:
"Here we distinguish observation from inference...you have personally observed them...to claim that their origin is supernatural, though, is an inference, not an observation."

My response:
God's presence isn't supernatural; it's radiation. Also, from observing god's presence, one can infer radiation.

Pro says:
"improbable events would only be evidence for God if they happened MORE often than they should, more often than they would by chance alone."

My response:
Improbable events are not evidence for god; this is:

cutaway_sm.jpg (5490 bytes)
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov...


I reject the resolution that nothing suggests that theism must be true, because god is observable by anyone/anything on earth that can detect god's radiation; we orbit god, it provides us with light/radiation, and god's radiation allows plants to produce food so that we may eat plants and enjoy their oxygen.

Pro?
Debate Round No. 1
MagicAintReal

Con

I extend my arguments, and I'm happy that Pro concedes.

This goes to show that definitions in the 1st round are crucial for debates.
"You should provide definitions in round 1" is a valid suggestion.

Thanks for the debate Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
Bound_Up

Pro

Do I need to put something here to fill in the 3rd round so the debate can end?
MagicAintReal

Con

Yes, usually people just type "forwarding"
Forwarding.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Bound_Up 1 year ago
Bound_Up
This wording is communicates the same meaning for the vast majority of theists.

Do you want the other wording so you can "win" based on semantics or something? I want to discuss real peoples' ideas.

It's preferable to discuss your actual beliefs, but if you don't actually believe what you're going to say, it could still work, but only if you can present the ideas of actual believers in their place.

If you want to start a debate with whatever definition of God you were going to use, I'll take a look at it and consider joining, though. Hope this works out for you.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
The other resolution was preferable, can you change it back? I'll accept if you do
Posted by Bound_Up 1 year ago
Bound_Up
What's wrong with it as is?
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Yessir. He left the definition of God open for me to define.
Posted by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
@MagicAintReal - are you playing devil's advocate?
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Why did you change the resolution?

Can you change it back to "Nothing suggests there must be a God?"
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
Bound_UpMagicAintRealTied
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: Concession, though I won't award conduct here because I didn't approve of Con's semantics but I also thought that the concession was also not particularly good conduct since there wasn't an evident reason as to why this was done. Therefore conduct is tied and arguments goes to Con due to the concession.
Vote Placed by hidude45454 1 year ago
hidude45454
Bound_UpMagicAintRealTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited the debate. Con responded to pro, all while stating new arguments and citing effective sources.
Vote Placed by Briannj17 1 year ago
Briannj17
Bound_UpMagicAintRealTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded. Therfore by default con made the better arguments and used better since his arguments went unrebutted and con was the only one to use sources. And conduct to him since pro conceded.