The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BrettBoelkens
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Proof of God Via Observation

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 1 vote the winner is...
BrettBoelkens
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 420 times Debate No: 103451
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (1)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

The fact that the believer in atheist Dogma is unable to observe God at this particular moment in time proves nothing about God's factual existence or about His factual characteristics -- it only proves that the believer in atheist Dogma's chosen method for observing God is inferior to that of the innumerable Theists, who have indeed observed God and His factual characteristics.

Your inability to observe any particular person does not prove that the other person somehow does not exist, and your personal inability to observe God also does not prove that He somehow doesn't exist. Their actions show that they indeed do exist, and God's written media (the scriptures) and His activities also show that He does indeed exist.

The fact that many people have observed Him in person and taken careful note of His factual characteristics and activities is further proof that He does indeed exist, along with His factual characteristics and activities, and these proofs are superior to any proofs that we could have about most people"s' existence. It is only the believer in atheist Dogma's stubborn obsession with his premature and unscientific conclusion that God somehow doesn't exist that prevents him from apprehending the scientific fact that God does indeed exist, while he readily accepts the existence of billions of human beings on the planet with inferior evidence for their existence.

In fact, having failed to observe God and His factual characteristics disqualifies the believer in atheist Dogma from producing any scientifically factual statements about Him, whether the believer in atheist Dogma's statements are positive or negative. The scientific method requires observation, and the believer in atheist Dogma has failed in this, the first step in the scientific method. Therefore he is unable to produce valid hypotheses about God, unable to produce valid scientific conclusions about God, and his unscientific beliefs about God must be absolutely discounted as just that by any truly scientific party in the entire circle of discussion centered on God.

Those who have actually observed God have a superior scientific position in regards to making scientifically factual statements about Him, and all of those who have actually observed Him state that He is a person with observable characteristics. Anyone who has not observed Him directly must necessarily accept the statements of those who have observed Him directly, if they are to gain any valid facts about Him at all. Their only other option is to make something up, such as "He somehow doesn't exist," which is exactly what the believer in atheist Dogma does, which is not scientifically or logically sound at all, and which is also untrue. The Theists' factual statements about God, coupled with God's own factual statements about Himself, are all based on observation, and are therefore scientifically sound, and further, they are conclusive scientific evidence that God is a real person with real, observable characteristics. That is the only scientific conclusion, whereas the believer in atheist Dogma's conclusion is incorrect, premature, and 100% unscientific.
BrettBoelkens

Con

Okay, lets get straight into it. My opponent provides no evidence for his positions besides mere assertion.

I must ask, what evidence do you have that it is an atheist's method is inferior? The theistic method has produced mutually exclusive, contradictory results. If everyone is reliably recording facts of the divine, why is that religion can't agree on hardly anything? Even in a religion itself, believers can't agree, often willing to kill for their beliefs, whether it be with Protestants and Catholics or Shia and Sunni. What is more likely; that one revelation is true in contrast to all others, or that mammals half a chromosome away from a chimpanzee imagine things that aren't real? Delusion is common worldwide, and saying that something is true merely since many believe in it, is simply fallacious.

And if you believe as Pascal that we are so made that we can not believe, one must ask the reasonableness of this. If the ability to choose one's belief wasn't there, and your belief in atheism or theism was ordained by God, there would be no choice in the matter. Your free will in regards to the proposition would be equivalent to your "decision" on the color of your hair at birth. Add to this divine punishment for beliefs we had no choice in choosing.



Debate Round No. 1
Purushadasa

Pro

Someone wrote:

"I must ask, what evidence do you have that it is an atheist's method is inferior?"

There is no such thing as an atheist.

"The theistic method...."

I am not defending the Theistic method -- I am defending the scientific method.

"saying that something is true merely since many believe in it, is simply fallacious."

I didn't claim that, so you just committed straw man logical fallacy.

BrettBoelkens provides no evidence for his positions besides mere assertion, whereas I provided evidence for my position. Therefore Brett lost the debate.
BrettBoelkens

Con

If there is no such thing as an atheist, why do you bother even arguing?

If you are defending the scientific method, why does science follow philosophical naturalism? And why are there so much more non-believers in science than the general public?

You did, in fact, use argumentum ad populum, a multitude of times. You be specific, you mention the innumerable amount of theists (p1 s1), and many people observing him (p3 s1), saying that this is proof that he exists.

You again ignore many of my arguments, including those of the contradictory revelations and doctrines of world religions. I must reiterate this. Let's take Christianity, the religion you are most likely to be familiar with. Even in the first couple centuries of Christianity, you have arguments about if Jesus died for our sins, or whether he was even a real person. Even if you only focus on major sects, and ignore cults like Heaven's Gate. Branch Davidians, and the Manson Family, you still have to realize at max only one could be right if any.


Debate Round No. 2
Purushadasa

Pro

Someone wrote:

"If there is no such thing as an atheist, why do you bother even arguing?"

I am a lover of the truth, and I also have an attraction for pugilism (martial arts, debate, politics, kicking ignorant trolls like you in the figurative nuts, and so forth).

Also, all human beings LOVE to talk about God -- even believers in atheist Dogma love to talk about God, so I am helping everyone on the site to engage in what is basically everybody on the planet's favorite activity -- talking about God.

Thanks for asking! =)

" why does science follow philosophical naturalism?"

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean: You need to re-phrase the question if you want an answer.

" And why are there so much more non-believers in science than the general public? "

That's because you believers in atheist Dogma, just like animals, are too stupid to engage in science.

"You did, in fact, use argumentum ad populum, a multitude of times."

No I didn't.

" You be specific, you mention the innumerable amount of theists (p1 s1), and many people observing him (p3 s1), saying that this is proof that he exists. "

I never said that, no, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"You again ignore many of my arguments,"

No I didn't.

" including those of the contradictory revelations and doctrines of world religions."

I don't have a religion, so that had nothing to do with my actual position in this debate. In other words, it was nothing but another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"you still have to realize at max only one could be right if any."

That is a false statement.

Also, I am not arguing in favor of religion in this debate, so that is also another straw man logical fallacy on your part anyway.

You lost this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
BrettBoelkens

Con

If there is no such thing as an atheist, why do you bother even arguing?

If you are defending the scientific method, why does science follow philosophical naturalism? And why are there so much more non-believers in science than the general public?

You did, in fact, use argumentum ad populum, a multitude of times. You be specific, you mention the innumerable amount of theists (p1 s1), and many people observing him (p3 s1), saying that this is proof that he exists.

You again ignore many of my arguments, including those of the contradictory revelations and doctrines of world religions. I must reiterate this. Let's take Christianity, the religion you are most likely to be familiar with. Even in the first couple centuries of Christianity, you have arguments about if Jesus died for our sins, or whether he was even a real person. Even if you only focus on major sects, and ignore cults like Heaven's Gate. Branch Davidians, and the Manson Family, you still have to realize at max only one could be right if any.


Debate Round No. 3
Purushadasa

Pro

Someone wrote and uploaded (twice):

"If there is no such thing as an atheist, why do you bother even arguing?"

I am a lover of the truth, and I also have an attraction for pugilism (martial arts, debate, politics, kicking ignorant trolls like you in the figurative nuts, and so forth).

Also, all human beings LOVE to talk about God -- even believers in atheist Dogma love to talk about God, so I am helping everyone on the site to engage in what is basically everybody on the planet's favorite activity -- talking about God.

Thanks for asking! =)

" why does science follow philosophical naturalism?"

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean: You need to re-phrase the question if you want an answer.

" And why are there so much more non-believers in science than the general public? "

That's because you believers in atheist Dogma, just like animals, are too stupid to engage in science.

"You did, in fact, use argumentum ad populum, a multitude of times."

No I didn't.

" You be specific, you mention the innumerable amount of theists (p1 s1), and many people observing him (p3 s1), saying that this is proof that he exists. "

I never said that, no, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"You again ignore many of my arguments,"

No I didn't.

" including those of the contradictory revelations and doctrines of world religions."

I don't have a religion, so that had nothing to do with my actual position in this debate. In other words, it was nothing but another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"you still have to realize at max only one could be right if any."

That is a false statement.

Also, I am not arguing in favor of religion in this debate, so that is also another straw man logical fallacy on your part anyway.

You lost this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
BrettBoelkens

Con

Real sorry. I didn't even know how I did that. Debate.org fix your site. I broke it.

Sorry, I meant to write methodological naturalism rather than philosophical. But anyway, science follows the principle of methodological naturalism, not considering supernatural causes for events. Why do you think this is the case if the scientific method should involve God, or whatever you believe.

To clarify my prior point, 95% of the American public believes in God/universal spirit while only 41% of AAAS members believe. Statistically speaking, there are more nonbelievers in God in the lab than believers. Why do you think this is the case if "atheists are too stupid to engage in science"?

Only 1 religion could be 100% true, if any. If I say that Trump is Washington, while others say he is in Singapore, Las Vegas or Paris, one of us must be wrong. He can't be in multiple places at once. All of them can't be right, but they can all be wrong. The same principle applies to religion.

I never said that you were part of a religion, and even if you were, the argument would still stand. If during an investigation, a detective finds that all the witnesses who can't even agree on basic facts, you have to ask how reliable they are.

And I know that my opponent will finish this off in the comments if you wish to see those. Anyway thanks for the debate.

http://www.pewforum.org...
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Well, you got me there. LOL

You proved that I made one typo on this site, but you didn't prove anything else that you tried to prove: I won our debate, no matter how anyone votes, and no matter how many typos I uploaded.
Posted by BrettBoelkens 5 months ago
BrettBoelkens
Si is spanish not english
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
That si not even a sentence. You need to find an English class in the Netherlands, Dutch-boy. LOLOLOLOL
Posted by BrettBoelkens 5 months ago
BrettBoelkens
So now that Dutch starts with an h and ends with an e.
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
I don't have a Dutch dictionary. What part of the Netherlands are you in? Do you have your finger in a dyke as we speak? Is it tulip season yet? LOLOLOLOL
Posted by BrettBoelkens 5 months ago
BrettBoelkens
Starts with an h, ends with an e. And if you're a nerd, you've seen it before
Posted by BrettBoelkens 5 months ago
BrettBoelkens
Look it up. Become cultured.
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Is that Dutch?
Posted by BrettBoelkens 5 months ago
BrettBoelkens
U are do shag schutta coo deserves tah nee choo.
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Aaaaw.... skippy is angry now! How cute..... LOL SMH =)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 5 months ago
Phenenas
PurushadasaBrettBoelkensTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Anyone who isn't Purushadasa deserves to win.