The Instigator
olivemike81
Pro (for)
Losing
49 Points
The Contender
Korezaan
Con (against)
Winning
52 Points

People should stop trying to prove or disprove that god exists.

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  
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: 12/16/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,848 times Debate No: 518
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (33)

 

olivemike81

Pro

This is not a debate between evolution and creationism.

This is also not a debate on whether or not god exists.

This is a debate about the futility of trying to prove god exists or not.

Also, if you think there is proof (actual hard, scientific, undisputable proof, one way or another) please provide it in your argument.

To those who say there is proof he exists: As of this moment there is absolutely no scientific evidence that god exists or has ever existed. You may be believe with all your heart that he does exists, but that's not proof, that's call faith.

To those who say there is proof he doesn't exist: You are just as delusional as the other side. You could literally explore every single part of the universe and you will probably never find any real evidence that god exists. But just because there is a lack of evidence does not mean he doesn't exist. For all we know he could be choosing to hide his existence from you. Until he decides to reveal himself to us (so that we can actually physically see him and tell us all about himself) we will never really know if he exists or not.

Once again this is not a debate on whether or not he actually exists, just about the proof or disproof. Also (for all you ladies) I'm not saying god is a man, I just didn't feel like writing he/she every time. For all we know god could be in the form of a 20 year old lesbian at Berkley.
Korezaan

Con

I'm going to waste a round just asking a question about my position.

Am I supposed to be supporting "proving or disproving god's existence is not futile" ?

And do people vote CON if I provide a sufficient way to prove or disprove his existence?
Debate Round No. 1
olivemike81

Pro

I'm saying that, as far as god exists, there is no proof that he exists or doesn't exist. Your side of the debate is providing evidence that either proves or disproves he exists.
Korezaan

Con

---"I'm saying that, as far as god exists, there is no proof that he exists or doesn't exist. Your side of the debate is providing evidence that either proves or disproves he exists."---

You are incorrect.

__________________

Consider the absurdity of the AFF's position. He says that you can't prove nor disprove the existence of God. Well, according to Albert Sweigart from his video, "An Atheist Response".

"[...]Next firefly brings up that both atheism and christianity require faith because you can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God.

But the problem with this argument is that you really can't prove or disprove the existance of pretty much anything outside of abstract areas like mathematics or predicate logic.

You can't prove that werewolves don't exist.
You can't prove that Invisible Pink unicorns don't exist.
You can't prove that carniverous humanoid underground dwellers don't exist.

Technically this means we have to be agnostic about the existance of invisible pink unicorns and everything else. But we'd feel rather silly if we had to admit that there is a remote chance that Santa Claus really does exists building those wooden toys that no kid ever gets for Christmas."

Just step outside the logos bubble for a moment and think rationally. The PRO's argument is that 'just because theres no evidence doesn't mean he doesn't exist'. 'For all we know he could be choosing to hide his existence from you.' I don't know about you, but that sounds like a point that comes from your stereotypical conspiracy theorist. All the arguments are nonfalsifiable.

Al continues,

"The issue here is who has the burden of proof.

If I told everyone that I saw a UFO land in my backyard, the burden of proof would be on me to produce evidence that this actually happened because I'm the one making the sensational claim.

I don't have to prove that invisible pink unicorns don't exist because I'm not the one making that claim. The burden of proof rests with the unicornians.

This is why I consider myself an atheist even though technically I can't disprove the existence of the Christian God. If you claim that an omnipotent God sent his son to be crucified so he could rise into Heaven and provide salvation for mankind, you'll have to produce sufficient evidence if you want me to believe you. Otherwise I'll simply believe that that isn't the case.

Besides, most people don't have a problem with being atheists with regards to the gods of other religions, like Zeus or Aji-Suki-Taka-Hiko-Ne."

If people that watch this debate want to be dumb and vote solely based on the technicalities of an argument, sure, at this point the AFF has already won. You can never defeat blind faith with its nonfalsifiable arguments. I think it's sufficient already to say that God DOES NOT EXIST if we cannot find evidence that he does.

Since the PRO already admits that there is no evidence of God existing, I need go no further. His only standing argument then is that.....

"he could be choosing to hide his existence from you."

.....which just leads to the pink unicorns and the existence of santy clause. Which I'd like to believe that the audience of this debate isn't about to honestly believe in.
Debate Round No. 2
olivemike81

Pro

Congratulations. That was the best use of circular logic I've ever seen in my life.

"I don't know about you, but that sounds like a point that comes from your stereotypical conspiracy theorist. All the arguments are nonfalsifiable." I think you have missed the whole point of the debate. My challenge is for someone to come along and give me evidence (one way or another) about god. We're not here to discuss the legitimacy of the debate. Your statement actually reinforced my entire point about god. Our fundamental lack of any significant knowledge about the universe leaves the existence of god a very open-ended one. The bible is not proof of god's existence and the lack of evidence does not prove he doesn't exist.

"I think it's sufficient already to say that God DOES NOT EXIST if we cannot find evidence that he does." The proceeding statement is a good example of the kind of flawed thinking that makes people think they can disprove god. Lack of evidence is a poor way to prove your case. Take for instance the discovery of germs and bacteria.

A few hundred years ago (the invention of the microscope) some scientists theorized that tiny microrganisms were the cause of infection and illness; unfortunately they couldn't prove that germs were real, and without any real evidence not many people believed them. Does that mean germs don't exist? No. It took the invention of the microscope to prove they existed. The lack of evidence for a god (just like germs) does not mean there is no god.
Korezaan

Con

Alright yall, I'ma simplify this debate.

Oh wait, haha, that's not possible.

1) ABUSE:

FIRST LEVEL:

PART I:

Alright so I'd like to make it clear to all that are reading this debate that the PRO on his R1 that he gave me the choice to either prove or disprove the existence of God.

---"I'm saying that, as far as god exists, there is no proof that he exists or doesn't exist. Your side of the debate is providing evidence that either proves or disproves he exists."---

However, when I chose to disprove the existence of God....

Ninjanuke - "You WANT him to prove theres a god... Which is not possible."

He gave me a choice and then rebuked it, essentially wasting the a whole round, and effectively the only round I had to make any new arguments.

PART II:

Mdal - "A more interesting argument is the meta-argument first suggested by olivemike81, about whether debating on the truth or lack there of to God's existence."

Again, he gives me the choice and then rebukes it.

SECOND LEVEL.

I've already told y'all in my R2 that if you want to go full logos and just not take into consideration irrational things that come out of that same line of reasoning then FINE, the Pro wins. But he's also....

Mdal - "...I think that olivemike81 made the debate near impossible for Korezaan when he makes this debate about whether Korezaan can provide evidence for God's existence[...]However as of right now I would like to point out that the burden of proof normally rests on AFF in debates like this...namely that AFF needs to prove that debates on god are useless, vs all CON needs to prove is NOT THAT."

I disagree with 'near impossible.'

It is FULLY IMPOSSIBLE. If this debate was actually the way the PRO stated in R1, "This is a debate about the futility of trying to prove god exists or not", then I've already won because I've given a way to disprove his existence. Since we can't find any evidence to believe in god, then we shouldn't believe in him. He then says that this doesn't disprove his existence.

He then brings up how we didn't believe in the existence of germs and stuff, just because we didn't see them. I will agree full heartedly to this argument.... to the point that it ONLY says that much.

"Does that mean germs don't exist? No. It took the invention of the microscope to prove they existed. The lack of evidence for a god (just like germs) does not mean there is no god."

Uhh. I think I already refuted this point. In my R2 I specifically quoted Al:

"[...]But the problem with this argument is that you really can't prove or disprove the existance of pretty much anything outside of abstract areas like mathematics or predicate logic.

You can't prove that werewolves don't exist.
You can't prove that Invisible Pink unicorns don't exist.
You can't prove that carniverous humanoid underground dwellers don't exist.

Technically this means we have to be agnostic about the existance of invisible pink unicorns and everything else. But we'd feel rather silly if we had to admit that there is a remote chance that Santa Claus really does exists building those wooden toys that no kid ever gets for Christmas."

And SINCE science is never complete and SINCE the PRO side can be FREAKIN safe by making that claim, they can ALWAYS say that "we havent gotten enough technology to find him yet". AND EVEN IF WE REACHED THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE TECHNOLOGICAL LEVEL, THEY CAN MERELY SAY:

"it's silly to try to CONVINCE someone into either belief OR unbelief."(topher)

yeah, I'd say that this debate is complete abuse towards the CON.

So this is what the round breaks down to. You have 13 reasons to vote CON.

A) he doesn't show you how I'm circular
B) he's using that only to provoke skimmers to vote PRO
C) he never proves that I'm using nonfalsifiable arguments
D) I show you every reason behind my points whereas he just says "just because
we can't find him doesn't mean he's not there" and I've just refuted that

E) HE HAS NO OFFENSE WHATSOEVER BECAUSE he never links "futility" to "People should stop trying to prove or disprove that god exists." He never says why futility means that people suddenly have a moral reason to stop debating the existence or not of god.

F) Abuse on two levels.
G) He is using nonfalsifiable argumentation. As Albert explains:
"Scientific theories have to at least logically admit a possible counterexample, or some experimental result that could prove the theory to be false. Nonfalsifiable theories are theories that by their design couldn't possibly be shown to be false.

For example, metaphysical solipsism is a nonfalsifiable belief.

Solipsism is the idea that your perspective encompasses the whole of reality and that the external world and everyone in it is only a mental creation of your own.

You can't disprove solipsism because any evidence of an external reality could be explained as being yet another of your mental creations.

Nonfalsifiable beliefs are often very conveniently packaged. Many conspiracy theories are also nonfalsifiable.

(to off camera) Well of course the investigators found a weather balloon instead of a spaceship, man. The fact that they didn't find any extraterrestrial artifacts just shows you how much the government is covering it all up, man. There are no witnesses because the men in black wiped everyone's memory. They also wiped their memory of having their memory wiped. Believe me, this thing goes deep.

Nonfalsifiable beliefs aren't very useful because they place themselves above scientific inquiry. There's no end to the number of nonfalsifiable ideas we could believe in, but a belief in any of them requires a leap of faith."

H) I could defeat his R2's GERM argument, his only true point, by saying just this:

True, we didn't believe in the existence of germs because we didn't see them, and we were wrong about them not being there. But the thing is, PRO's whole perspective is based upon the idea that science has dogmatic characteristics like religion.

However, science doesn't think that it has all the answers, as religions do.

He loses the argument again on two levels.

I) First, because it means we have to be agnostic about everything. Refer to Albert and the Invisible Pink Unicorns WHICH HE NEVER REFUTED BY THE WAY, and since silence is consent and that was his last round, that means he agrees that people should believe in their existence along with vampires, the easter bunny, and everything else.

J)Second, because this sort of belief justifies anything. It's abuse on A THIRD LEVEL: You can't disprove the existence of invisible pink unicorns, because they don't want to show themselves to us.

K) OH WAIT, then he can turn around and take the other side too, because his side is "futility" and my side is "not". Essentially what he has done is create a moving advocacy, something that I can never truly attack on a pure logical level, therefore creating ABUSE THREE.

L) IT IS IMPORTANT FOR ALL READING THIS DEBATE TO UNDERSTAND that the PRO has done a lot to muddle up this debate and is trying to get a free win.

Sorry if this R3 looks incoherent. But that's how much space it needs to take.

His position is clear from the start that it's abusive. At any given point in the debate, he can switch to the other side. He gives himself room to go either pro-god or anti-god, and has used nonfalsifiable arguments to bring himself above the attackable grounds.

You shouldn't be voting for a guy that employs tactics like that.

M) I have already given you a fully rational way to stop believing in the possible existence of God.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by devinni01841 6 years ago
devinni01841
I agree with the pro, but Korezaan's use of circular logic, and invisible pink unicorn is simply *BRILLIANT*
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
I win by default due to PRO's abuse.
Posted by Masterworks 9 years ago
Masterworks
Why the ____ does con have more votes? It's impossible to win!
Posted by Masterworks 9 years ago
Masterworks
I, personally, think that con is just mad because he/she can't win. Personal belief!->God exists. But, aside from facts that I can't make anyone believe because they're all from religious texts which they don't believe, I can't prove that to anyone. But yeah, con can't win. >D
Posted by olivemike81 9 years ago
olivemike81
I didn't realize my simple debate question was abusive. Once again someone missed the whole point of why I did this debate. You're right it is impossible; that's why people should stop being idiots and keep trying to prove the issue one way or another.
Posted by Ninjanuke 9 years ago
Ninjanuke
"I asked people to prove or disprove that god existed and actually offer evidence"

Thats impossible which means you are being abusive and therefore cannot win the debate.
If you vote pro, that means you are supporting him and his abusive ways.
Posted by olivemike81 9 years ago
olivemike81
Korezaan: Yes you chose the opposite position but you didn't give me what I asked for. I asked people to prove or disprove that god existed and actually offer evidence. All you did was say that because we haven't found evidence he must not exist. You did not offer one shred of actual proof or evidence.
Posted by olivemike81 9 years ago
olivemike81
Cindela: That's the whole point of the debate. No one can offer any proof right now wither way. Some people think that lack of evidence proves god doesn't exist.
Posted by impactyourworld89 9 years ago
impactyourworld89
Here's an easy answer. You can't prove that God exists, but in the same way, you can't prove God doesn't exist. If we knew without a doubt that God did exist, there would be no room for faith. (I think I'm basically echoing adamh, but thats ok. It can never be said too many times!)
Posted by Cindela 9 years ago
Cindela
olivemike81: if you are going to say:"I challenged someone to offer proof about god's existence or lack thereof. Lack of evidence doesn't prove anything." It is an open shut case. There is no way to prove it either way and there is no way for someone to win this debate.
33 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by devinni01841 6 years ago
devinni01841
olivemike81KorezaanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by marin24 8 years ago
marin24
olivemike81KorezaanTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by roycegee 9 years ago
roycegee
olivemike81KorezaanTied
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 ronnyyip 9 years ago
ronnyyip
olivemike81KorezaanTied
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 wooferalot101 9 years ago
wooferalot101
olivemike81KorezaanTied
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 Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
olivemike81KorezaanTied
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 kenicks 9 years ago
kenicks
olivemike81KorezaanTied
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 krakilin 9 years ago
krakilin
olivemike81KorezaanTied
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 DeATHNOTE 9 years ago
DeATHNOTE
olivemike81KorezaanTied
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 Ninjanuke 9 years ago
Ninjanuke
olivemike81KorezaanTied
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