The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
brian.bors7
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Proof of God Via Subjective Morality:

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 2 votes the winner is...
brian.bors7
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 762 times Debate No: 103445
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (41)
Votes (2)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

1. Formation of subjective opinions requires non-fabricated data
about the Actual Thing in Question (ATQ).

(Any opinions formed independent of non-fabricated data about the ATQ would necessarily be about some other thing, and not about the ATQ).

2. Non-fabricated data about the ATQ requires valid observation of the ATQ.

(Without valid observation of the ATQ, any data compiled would necessarily be fabricated).

3. Valid observation of the ATQ requires the objective existence of the ATQ.

(If the ATQ lacked objective existence, then any observation in which one may engage
would necessarily be of some other thing, and not of the ATQ).

4. Some persons possess subjective opinions about moral ideals.

5. Therefore, subjective opinions about moral ideals exist.

6. Therefore, non-fabricated data about moral ideals exist.

7. Therefore, valid observation of moral ideals exists.

8. Therefore, moral ideals exist objectively.

In addition, the conclusions of the above proof also prove that God exists objectively:

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral ideals do not exist.

2. Objective moral ideals do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists. QED
brian.bors7

Con

Thank you Purushadasa for setting up this debate.

I agree with statement 1 trough 8 in the first proof if(!) "Moral Ideals" are defined as something like "a moral principle or value that one actively pursues as a goal,". Which means that certain moral ideals are conflicting (because other people might pursue conflicting moral principles or values as a goal).

If moral ideals are defined as such than statement 1 in the second proof doesn't follow from anything because in that case moral ideals are created by mortals (and can be in conflict with each other). Rendering the rest of the proof moot.

I do not agree with statement 4 in the first proof if(!) "Moral Ideals" are defined as something that doesn't exist, like for example "a law about how mortals ought to act created by a deity.".

If moral ideals are defined as such than statement 4 is not self-evident because it could be that those "some persons" possess subjective opinions about the description of moral ideals instead of those moral ideals themselves. Rendering the rest of the proof moot.

-------------
The trick to understanding where these proofs go wrong is in the following statement:
"(Any opinions formed independent of non-fabricated data about the ATQ would necessarily be about some other thing, and not about the ATQ)"

Opinions formed about "moral ideals" aren't actually about moral ideals at all if moral ideals don't objectively exist, they are about some other thing (probably the descriptions of those non-existent moral ideals).
------------

It should not really come as a surprise to anyone that the proofs don't work like that, because if they did they could be used to prove the existence of literally anything (demonstrated below with gnomes)

1. Formation of subjective opinions requires non-fabricated data
about the Actual Thing in Question (ATQ).

(Any opinions formed independent of non-fabricated data about the ATQ would necessarily be about some other thing, and not about the ATQ).

2. Non-fabricated data about the ATQ requires valid observation of the ATQ.

(Without valid observation of the ATQ, any data compiled would necessarily be fabricated).

3. Valid observation of the ATQ requires the objective existence of the ATQ.

(If the ATQ lacked objective existence, then any observation in which one may engage
would necessarily be of some other thing, and not of the ATQ).

4. Some persons possess subjective opinions about gnomes.

5. Therefore, subjective opinions about gnomes exist.

6. Therefore, non-fabricated data about gnomes exist.

7. Therefore, valid observation of gnomes exists.

8. Therefore, gnomes exist objectively.

Surely you could respond with "How do we know self-evidently that some persons possess subjective opinions about gnomes AKA satement 4?" To which I would reply "We do not. They could simply have subjective opinions about the descriptions of gnomes."
Debate Round No. 1
Purushadasa

Pro

Someone wrote:

"I agree with statement 1 trough 8 in the first proof"

"I do not agree with statement 4 in the first proof"

Your mere agreement or disagreement with any particular statement does not have any effect on the truth of that statement.

"It should not really come as a surprise to anyone that the proofs don't work like that"

Yes they do.

", because if they did they could be used to prove the existence of literally anything"

No they couldn't.

" (demonstrated below with gnomes)

1. Formation of subjective opinions requires non-fabricated data
about the Actual Thing in Question (ATQ).

(Any opinions formed independent of non-fabricated data about the ATQ would necessarily be about some other thing, and not about the ATQ).

2. Non-fabricated data about the ATQ requires valid observation of the ATQ.

(Without valid observation of the ATQ, any data compiled would necessarily be fabricated).

3. Valid observation of the ATQ requires the objective existence of the ATQ.

(If the ATQ lacked objective existence, then any observation in which one may engage
would necessarily be of some other thing, and not of the ATQ).

4. Some persons possess subjective opinions about gnomes.

5. Therefore, subjective opinions about gnomes exist.

6. Therefore, non-fabricated data about gnomes exist.

7. Therefore, valid observation of gnomes exists.

8. Therefore, gnomes exist objectively.""

My next-door neighbor has a garden gnome in his garden that he bought at Home Depot. Garden gnomes are a type of gnome, so you're right -- gnomes do exist objectively. Thanks for your agreement and support, and God bless you! =)

...but this debate is not about garden gnomes or about gnomes in general, it is about God and about subjective moral ideals: You proved that gnomes exist, but that is not relevant to the actual debate -- it is merely a red herring logical fallacy on your part.

You have proven nothing about God, nor have you proven anything about moral ideals. Therefore you lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
brian.bors7

Con

Thank you Purushadasa for the quick response!

My opponent wrote "Your mere agreement or disagreement with any particular statement does not have any effect on the truth of that statement." I agree with that completely, which is why I supplied argumentation next to my statement of disagreement.

My opponent has ignored those arguments which I will repeat here for clarity:

"If moral ideals are defined as such (a moral principle or value that one actively pursues as a goal) than statement 1 in the second proof doesn't follow from anything because in that case moral ideals are created by mortals (and can be in conflict with each other). Rendering the rest of the proof moot."

"If moral ideals are defined as such (a law about how mortals ought to act created by a deity) than statement 4 is not self-evident because it could be that those "some persons" possess subjective opinions about the description of moral ideals instead of those moral ideals themselves. Rendering the rest of the proof moot."

I advice my opponent to address these arguments as the judging public will surely see that these arguments where ignored otherwise.

------------

My opponent has chosen to interpret my example about gnomes in a different way than I had intended. He assumed that I was talking about types of gnomes that exist while my intention was to talk about types of gnomes that don't exist. This is unfortunate as this wastes a round in the debate but it could be that this is my fault; it could be that I was not clear enough about this. I will try and restate my example with "something Purushadasa doesn't believe exists", My opponent is free to substitute this with something my opponent doesn't believes exists.

1. Formation of subjective opinions requires non-fabricated data
about the Actual Thing in Question (ATQ).

(Any opinions formed independent of non-fabricated data about the ATQ would necessarily be about some other thing, and not about the ATQ).

2. Non-fabricated data about the ATQ requires valid observation of the ATQ.

(Without valid observation of the ATQ, any data compiled would necessarily be fabricated).

3. Valid observation of the ATQ requires the objective existence of the ATQ.

(If the ATQ lacked objective existence, then any observation in which one may engage
would necessarily be of some other thing, and not of the ATQ).

4. Some persons possess subjective opinions about something Purushada doesn't believe exists.

5. Therefore, subjective opinions about something Purushada doesn't believe exists exist.

6. Therefore, non-fabricated data about something Purushada doesn't believe exists exist.

7. Therefore, valid observation of something Purushada doesn't believe exists exists.

8. Therefore, something Purushada doesn't believe exists exist objectively.

------------

My opponent states that I have created a "red herring logical fallacy" by proving the existence of garden-gnomes. It was however not my intention to prove the existence of garden-gnomes (see above) and I am sorry for any confusion this might have caused.

------------

My opponent concludes that I have proved nothing about God, nor about moral ideals. My opponent is correct in this assertion. I have not set out to prove anything about these things as I am merely trying to show the flaws in the proofs presented by my opponent in the opening statement. I am unsure how my lack of proving anything about God or moral ideals loses me the debate as the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim, and with good reason: because it is logically impossible to prove a negate AKA prove that something doesn't exist objectively.
Debate Round No. 2
Purushadasa

Pro

Someone wrote:

"my intention was to talk about types of gnomes that don't exist."

You didn't specify that originally -- you just said "gnomes," and as you have admitted, some types of gnomes (the ones made of plaster) do indeed exist.

"This is unfortunate as this wastes a round in the debate but it could be that this is my fault; it could be that I was not clear enough about this."

That is true -- it is your fault.

"I will try and restate my example with "something Purushadasa doesn't believe exists", My opponent is free to substitute this with something my opponent doesn't believes exists."

I already anticipated this, and if you want, we can go with "living gnomes," because I'm sure that you and I can agree that, unlike Home Depot gnomes (which are not living but do exist and are constructed from plaster and paint), living gnomes actually do not exist.

"1. Formation of subjective opinions requires non-fabricated data
about the Actual Thing in Question (ATQ).

(Any opinions formed independent of non-fabricated data about the ATQ would necessarily be about some other thing, and not about the ATQ).

2. Non-fabricated data about the ATQ requires valid observation of the ATQ.

(Without valid observation of the ATQ, any data compiled would necessarily be fabricated).

3. Valid observation of the ATQ requires the objective existence of the ATQ.

(If the ATQ lacked objective existence, then any observation in which one may engage
would necessarily be of some other thing, and not of the ATQ).

4. Some persons possess subjective opinions about living gnomes"

No they don't: Living gnomes do not actually exist, so no human being could possibly observe them. Observation of the ATQ would be required in order to form a subjective opinion about the ATQ because if the ATQ is not observed, then any subjective opinion formed would necessarily be about some other thing, and not about the ATQ). Therefore nobody actually has any subjective opinions about living gnomes -- what we have about them is objectively true statements and objectively false statements, but we can not possibly have any subjective opinions about living gnomes.

5. Therefore, subjective opinions about living gnomes exist.

No they don't: (See above).

6. Therefore, non-fabricated data about living gnomes exist.

No they don't.

7. Therefore, valid observation of living gnomes exists.

No it doesn't.

8. Therefore, living gnomes exist objectively.

No they don't.

The argument I posited does not prove that any nonexistent thing (such as a living gnome) exists -- it only proves that existent things (such as non-living plaster gnomes) exist. Therefore it is a valid argument, and you have failed to provide any valid refutation to any of its premises, you have failed to provide any valid refutation to its logical structure or its logical coherence, and you have failed to provide any valid refutation to its conclusion. In fact, all of the ideas that you have posited and applied to my argument have provided support for my argument only, as the above text (written collaboratively by you and me) amply demonstrates.

"My opponent states that I have created a "red herring logical fallacy" by proving the existence of garden-gnomes. It was however not my intention to prove the existence of garden-gnomes (see above) and I am sorry for any confusion this might have caused."

I accept your apology: Can we stop talking about gnomes now, please, and get back to the actual subject of this debate? Red herrings are a waste of your time and mine, and the whole gnome thing is ultimately nothing but a red herring. It did actually damage your case, but I prefer to discuss the actual argument that I posited, not your silly red herrings -- even if they damage your case and support mine, as your silly gnome drivel ended up doing.

"My opponent concludes that I have proved nothing about God,"

You haven't.

" nor about moral ideals"

You haven't: The only things you've proven anything about so far are:

1. non-living gnomes (you proved, using my argument, that they exist).

2. living gnomes (you proved, using my argument, that they do not exist), and,

3. My argument (you proved that my argument is valid, true, and sound)

" My opponent is correct in this assertion."

Of course I am.

" I have not set out to prove anything about these things as I am merely trying to show the flaws in the proofs"

You provided no evidence of any "flaws" in my proofs. To the contrary, you have proven conclusively that there are no flaws in my proof: Thank you for your assistance! (You are supposed to be arguing against my position, BTW -- not in its favor!) LOL =)

I am unsure how my lack of proving anything about God or moral ideals loses me the debate as the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim"

In actual debate, the burden of proof rests equally on both parties, not just one. It's clear that you are unfamiliar with actual debate, however, so I will forgive your ignorance of that fact, for now.

", and with good reason: because it is logically impossible to prove a negate [sic]"

No it isn't. Also, if it were, then that would mean that you had chosen the less intelligent side of this debate -- the one that cannot possibly be proven.

However, it is exceedingly easy to prove a negative. For example:

Married bachelors do not exist (a negative position).

All bachelors are unmarried. Therefore I just proved a negative (married bachelors do not exist). There are many more examples I could give, if necessary, but this one proves my point sufficiently.

You lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
brian.bors7

Con

Thanks again for the quick response.

The reason I used the gnomes example was to show that before anyone can make the fourth statement of the first proof, they would need to assert the existence of the ATQ. Because without that assertion the opinions formed could simply be about something else.

"I already anticipated this, and if you want, we can go with "living gnomes," because I'm sure that you and I can agree that, unlike Home Depot gnomes (which are not living but do exist and are constructed from plaster and paint), living gnomes actually do not exist."

As my opponent has shown with this example of "living gnomes" you can tumble this proof by simply stating "living gnomes do not actually exist so no human being could possibly observe them". The same can be done with "moral ideals".

"1. Formation of subjective opinions requires non-fabricated data
about the Actual Thing in Question (ATQ).

(Any opinions formed independent of non-fabricated data about the ATQ would necessarily be about some other thing, and not about the ATQ).

2. Non-fabricated data about the ATQ requires valid observation of the ATQ.

(Without valid observation of the ATQ, any data compiled would necessarily be fabricated).

3. Valid observation of the ATQ requires the objective existence of the ATQ.

(If the ATQ lacked objective existence, then any observation in which one may engage
would necessarily be of some other thing, and not of the ATQ).

4. Some persons possess subjective opinions about moral ideals."

No they don't: moral ideals do not actually exist, so no human being could possibly observe them. Observation of the ATQ would be required in order to form a subjective opinion about the ATQ because if the ATQ is not observed, then any subjective opinion formed would necessarily be about some other thing, and not about the ATQ). Therefore nobody actually has any subjective opinions about moral ideals -- what we have about them is objectively true statements and objectively false statements, but we can not possibly have any subjective opinions about moral ideals.

5. Therefore, subjective opinions about moral ideals exist.

No they don't: (See above).

6. Therefore, non-fabricated data about moral ideals exist.

No they don't.

7. Therefore, valid observation of moral ideals exists.

No it doesn't.

8. Therefore, moral ideals exist objectively.

No they don't.

My opponent states "The argument I posited does not prove that any nonexistent thing (such as a living gnome) exists -- it only proves that existent things (such as non-living plaster gnomes) exist." which is false as the argument doesn't prove that existent things exist without first asserting that they exist which turns the proof into a tautology. This is the flaw in the proof. The proof cannot be used to prove existing things exist and cannot be used to prove that non-existing things do not exist.

My opponent states "In actual debate, the burden of proof rests equally on both parties, not just one."

I do no agree with this, as the topic of this particular debate is just one proof (namely the one the subject). Adding more proofs to the debate would muddy the subject. This debate is only about whether or not that one proof is valid or not. The only thing the Contender would need to do to show the proof invalid is point out flaws in the proof itself, not argue for the null hypothesis of "god exists".

Whether or not negative statements that are not tautologies can be proved and whether or not evidence of absence can ever be put forward is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The subject is the proof named "Proof of God Via Subjective Morality:" in the subject and I have shows the flaws in that proof:

1. "If moral ideals are defined as such (a moral principle or value that one actively pursues as a goal) than statement 1 in the second proof doesn't follow from anything because in that case moral ideals are created by mortals (and can be in conflict with each other). Rendering the rest of the proof moot."

2. "If moral ideals are defined as such (a law about how mortals ought to act created by a deity) than statement 4 is not self-evident because it could be that those "some persons" possess subjective opinions about the description of moral ideals instead of those moral ideals themselves. Rendering the rest of the proof moot."

The fact that the proof can be refuted in the same way that my opponent has refuted that proof when it was used to prove the existence of living gnomes shows the (second) flaw mentioned here.
Debate Round No. 3
Purushadasa

Pro

Someone wrote:

"The reason I used the gnomes example"

Jeez, dude -- get off the gnomes! That side-discussion proved my side, not yours anyway.

""I already anticipated this, and if you want, we can go with "living gnomes," because I'm sure that you and I can agree that, unlike Home Depot gnomes (which are not living but do exist and are constructed from plaster and paint), living gnomes actually do not exist."

As my opponent has shown with this example of "living gnomes" you can tumble this proof by simply stating "living gnomes do not actually exist so no human being could possibly observe them". "

It doesn't "tumble" the proof -- it supports it.

"The same can be done with "moral ideals"."

Actually, my argument proves that moral ideas do exist objectively.

"1. Formation of subjective opinions requires non-fabricated data
about the Actual Thing in Question (ATQ).

(Any opinions formed independent of non-fabricated data about the ATQ would necessarily be about some other thing, and not about the ATQ).

2. Non-fabricated data about the ATQ requires valid observation of the ATQ.

(Without valid observation of the ATQ, any data compiled would necessarily be fabricated).

3. Valid observation of the ATQ requires the objective existence of the ATQ.

(If the ATQ lacked objective existence, then any observation in which one may engage
would necessarily be of some other thing, and not of the ATQ).

4. Some persons possess subjective opinions about moral ideals."

No they don't:"

Yes they do.

" moral ideals do not actually exist"

Yes they do: Some people think abortion is morally wrong, while others think abortion is morally right. Those are two moral ideals that definitely exist.

", so no human being could possibly observe them."

Yes we can.

" Observation of the ATQ would be required in order to form a subjective opinion about the ATQ because if the ATQ is not observed, then any subjective opinion formed would necessarily be about some other thing, and not about the ATQ). Therefore nobody actually has any subjective opinions about moral ideals"

Yes we do.

"we can not possibly have any subjective opinions about moral ideals."

Yes we can.

5". Therefore, subjective opinions about moral ideals exist."

True.

6. "Therefore, non-fabricated data about moral ideals exist."

Also true.

7." Therefore, valid observation of moral ideals exists."

Again, that is true.

8. "Therefore, moral ideals exist objectively."

You are correct: Thank you for your agreement and support, and God bless you! =)

"the argument doesn't prove that existent things exist"

Yes it does.

"This is the flaw in the proof."

You have failed to point out any actual "flaw" in the proof. In fact, you have provided support that the proof is true, valid, and sound.

" The proof cannot be used to prove existing things exist and cannot be used to prove that non-existing things do not exist."

Yes it can. You yourself already used it to prove at least three things according to the parameters of the proof.

"My opponent states "In actual debate, the burden of proof rests equally on both parties, not just one."

I do no agree with this,"

Neither does the pig, but yours and the pig's ignorance of the facts has no effect on the facts.

"The only thing the Contender would need to do to show the proof invalid is point out flaws in the proof itself"

That is not true, and in addition, you have not accomplished that anyway.

If your silly assertion that the burden of proof was always 100% on the Pro side were true, then anyone who wanted to "win" any debate on the Con side would merely have to show up and fart (which is basically all that you have done here, so far, BTW), but that is ludicrous! Also, all I would have to do in order to "win" this debate would be to re-word it to place myself on the Con side, and then say nothing at all, and according to your silly and incorrect claim, I would thereby "win" the debate.

You are nothing but an ignorant charlatan, and the only reason you posit the above silly fantasy is that you know damn well that you are wrong and therefore have no actual chance of winning the debate. Stop farting and start proving your side with evidence instead -- all you have managed to do so far is to provide evidence in favor of my side.

"The subject is the proof named "Proof of God Via Subjective Morality:" in the subject and I have shows the flaws in that proof:"

No you haven't.

"The fact that the proof can be refuted in the same way that my opponent has refuted that proof when it was used to prove the existence of living gnomes shows the (second) flaw mentioned here."

Actually, using my argument to disprove the existence of living gnomes demonstrates that my argument is valid, not that it is invalid -- because living gnomes actually do not exist.

You lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
brian.bors7

Con

Thanks again for the quick response.

"Yes they do: Some people think abortion is morally wrong, while others think abortion is morally right. Those are two moral ideals that definitely exist."

If that is the definition of moral ideals that my opponent uses, than indeed; moral ideals do exist, as I have stated in my first response. However, if my opponent uses that(!) definition of moral ideals than moral ideals can all come from mortals and therefore no god is needed. The statement "If God does not exist, then objective moral ideals do not exist." would be untrue if all moral ideals can come from mortals as I have stated already in my first response.

I have not proved that either living gnomes or plastic gnomes exist or don't exist. Those examples where simply used to show the flaws in the proof as the proof is a tautology. I haven't used the proof of my opponent to prove or disprove anything.

I have shown the subject of this debate, the proof named "Proof of God Via Subjective Morality", to be flawed.

The burden of proof is not always 100% on the Pro side and I have not claimed that. But even if it was, a single argument from the Pro side would be enough to win if the Con side did not come up with a respond. So simply showing up and doing nothing would not win anyone any debates.

My opponent calls me an ignorant charlatan, I find this amusing and wish him wisdom and happiness.

Thank you for the debate and thanks to any readers or judges.
Debate Round No. 4
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Figure it out yourself, douchebag.
Posted by brian.bors7 5 months ago
brian.bors7
I am sorry you got that impression Purushadasa. It was never my intention to disrupt process in this conversation but I would love to hear where I disrupted process so I can avoid that in the future.

Thank you for you kind words EnchantedPlatinum.
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Someone wrote:

"there is a distiction between objective and objectively,"

I never claimed that there wasn't a distinction between those two words, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part.
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Brian, no, I think you are doing that.

I am just imitating you in order to demonstrate that that is what you're doing. =)
Posted by EnchantedPlatinum 5 months ago
EnchantedPlatinum
You see, when the logic of another clashes with yours, It is easy to claim they are simply wrong, but when your claims just happen to counter your own claims, you have to wiggle as hard as you can to avoid the question.

Brian, I commend you for, and have unfathomable amounts of respect for your patience and civility. But you know just as well as I that while earlier comments between you and Purushadasa could potentially have had a base in the original debate, the last few comments are a blatant example of that which is described in paragraph one.

P.S. Both you and your friends are absolutely right, there is a distiction between objective and objectively, ESPECIALLY due to the context they were used in. The wording massively changed the meanings of the two phrases.
Posted by brian.bors7 5 months ago
brian.bors7
I am unsure where I picked up the this definition of the word "clear". I have the feeling you are intentionally disrupting process in this conversation. Is that correct?
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Why do you think that?
Posted by brian.bors7 5 months ago
brian.bors7
By "more clear" I mean "easier to understand".
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
That is not even a sentence.
Posted by brian.bors7 5 months ago
brian.bors7
easier to understand
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 5 months ago
Phenenas
Purushadasabrian.bors7Tied
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: Con gave some rambling about...I think it was gnomes or something? Still makes more since than Purushadasa.
Vote Placed by Wylted 5 months ago
Wylted
Purushadasabrian.bors7Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Test