The Instigator
tvellalott
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DakotaKrafick
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

RESOLVED: It is more logical to believe that no 'God' exists II

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 2 votes the winner is...
DakotaKrafick
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 712 times Debate No: 21400
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

tvellalott

Pro

PLEASE DON'T ACCEPT THIS DEBATE UNLESS YOU ARE CERTAIN YOU WILL COMPLETE IT. I'M TIRED OF STARTING THIS SAME TOPIC AND THEN YET ANOTHER ARSEHOLE FORFEITS.

Ru
les:
This will be a three round debate, beginning in round 2.

Rounds will be restricted to the following:
ROUND 1: Strictly for definitions, rules and acceptance. THERE WILL BE NO ARGUMENTS MADE IN ROUND 1
ROUND 2: Pro (me) will provide opening arguments. Con will provide their own arguments/counter arguments and rebuttals.
ROUND 3: Pro and Con may introduce new arguments. Pro and Con will continue with counter arguments and rebuttals.
ROUND 4: Strictly no new arguments. Pro and Con may make their final rebuttals and conclude their arguments.

I accept the burden of proof, though it is up to each of us to reasonably prove our assertions, at the discretion of the voter.

Definitions:

The word 'logical' obviously pertains to the word 'logic' which for the point is this debate will be defined as[sourced from: http://dictionary.reference.com......]:
1) "The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference."
3) "The system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study."
4) "Reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions."


The word 'God' is defined as "the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe" and "one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs."

This is the God of Monotheistic Abrahamic Religions, though not restricted to it. I'm speaking specifically of an omni-max and personal God, such as Yahweh or Allah, though this debate is not strictly restricted to said Gods.

If there is any confusion about exactly what I'm talking about (I'm trying to avoid semantics and vague philosophical arguments and it's quite late), accept this debate, but let us discuss the specifics in the comment section before you post your acceptance.

A pre-emptive good luck to my opponent. Let's have a fun debate.
DakotaKrafick

Con

I accept your challenge, tvellalott. I shall be refuting the idea that it is more logical to believe that no "God" exists (as defined in my opponent's introduction), presumably than to believe that a "God" does.

Ball's in your court now, tvellalott. Good luck.


Debate Round No. 1
tvellalott

Pro

tvellalott forfeited this round.
DakotaKrafick

Con

"I'M TIRED OF STARTING THIS SAME TOPIC AND THEN YET ANOTHER ARSEHOLE FORFEITS."

One can't contrive irony this thick.

Before you continue reading, viewers, please refer to the comments section in order to read my opponent's second round. I didn't accept this debate so I could win off of forfeits so I allowed him to post his argument as a comment. It's okay, I'll wait.

Finished? Okay, welcome back.

My Opponent's Arguments' Main Flaw

My opponent has happily taken the burden of proof in this debate in proving that it is more logical to belief no God exists than believing that one does. As an atheist, I wholeheartedly disagree with the proposition. It is equally as illogical to believe no God exists than to believe one does.

Now, before I get into my opponent's arguments, allow me to formally introduce you to the most abused logical fallacy in the history of rational discourse: ad ignorantiam (literally "argument from ignorance" or "appeal to ignorance").

The argument from ignorance fallacy comes in two forms:
X has never been proven to be false; therefore, X is true.
X has never been proven to be true; therefore, X is false. [1]
My opponent is relentlessly demonstrating the second form in his arguments. (Note: "X", in this case, is the proposition "God exists".)

Rebuttals

Now to look at my opponent's three main arguments:

1. Prayer

My opponent asserts that all "answered" prayers are really just coincidences. Sure, this might be the case. There is no reason to attribute so-called miracles to a deity. But then, there is also no reason to discern the cause for said miracles are necessarily without divine intervention.

2. Scripture

My opponent asserts that all holy scriptures of every religion are nothing more than man-made. My opponent extends the challenge for me "to show any piece of scripture which contains knowledge that would be impossible for the writers to have known". With respect, I decline my opponent's challenge. I concede that every religious text in history has been nothing more than the products of human minds.

Does this necessarily mean that no God at all exists? Of course not. While infamous meme "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence" may be alluring in its adorable simplicity, it's widely understood in philosophical circles to be untrue. In reality, an absence of evidence is just that: an absence of evidence to prove the validity or invalidity of a claim (thus the ad ignorantiam).

3. Existence

My opponent asserts that the origins of the universe and of life had absolutely no supernatural influence to them purely on the basis that many other phenomena we know of have a natural explanation. This beautifully illustrates an error in inductive reasoning: assuming everything in a particular category must necessarily have property X because most or all the ones we know of so far do.

The following is a simple example of the same kind of inductive reasoning error: every woman I've ever met has been married; therefore, every woman in the entire world is married.

It's true that we have some very appealing scientific models for the origins of the universe and abiogenesis, but none of them can entirely rule out the possibility of divine intervention, especially not on the basis that other phenomena we know of are natural. Does this mean divine intervention, in fact, played a role in the origins of the universe and of life? No, there is no reason to believe a deity created the universe. But, then, there is also no reason to believe one didn't.

Pro's strange proclamation

My opponent states this pretty early on in his round: "I would also like to add that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of God, since by all definitions he exists outside the laws of nature. It is NOT my burden of proof to prove that God doesn't exist, only to show it is more logical to believe that no God exists."

Notice how he says he's not trying to prove God doesn't exist (as that's admittedly impossible), just that it's logical to believe God doesn't exist. Tell me, Pro: without any evidence to support the non-existence of God, how is it logical to assume God does not exist any more than it is logical to assume God does without evidence?

Conclusion

Is it logical to believe X is true or false with no evidence that X is true or false? Not at all. I have explained why both believing a God exists and believing a God doesn't exist are equally desirous of forming assumptions where assumptions should not justifiably be made.

Over to you, tvellalott.

Source

[1] http://www.iep.utm.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
tvellalott

Pro

I forfeit this debate. I have been trying to come up with a clever way to get out of the fallacy trap I've put myself into but I can't. I have been trying to work out a good counter-argument to "it is equally logical to believe God does or doesn't exist, but I can't. I've failed.

Back to the drawing board.

Also, I'm stupid and I only set the debate to 3 rounds.

I apologise to my opponent and realise I'm a hypocritical jerk.

Full points to him.
DakotaKrafick

Con

Thank you, tvellalott, for debating this with me; despite the forfeit, it was enjoyable. Since you have conceded, I must urge the viewers to vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tvellalott 2 years ago
tvellalott
Very nice.
Posted by tvellalott 2 years ago
tvellalott
This is the God of Monotheistic Abrahamic Religions, though not restricted to it. ***I'm speaking specifically of an omni-max and personal God, such as*** Yahweh or Allah, though this debate is not strictly restricted to said Gods.

I definitely defined God as omni-max and personal.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 2 years ago
DakotaKrafick
Before I post my rebuttal, I must ask for clarification on a specific point here. It seems to me you defined God as "the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe" and "one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs." Afterwards, you did mention personal deities which exhibit omni-max properties, but said we were not limited to these.

Must I defend a personal and omni-max deity or must I defend a "God" as it was actually defined in your introduction. Because if "personal" and "omni-max" were important aspects of your definition of "God", then you probably should have included them in your definition of "God".
Posted by tvellalott 2 years ago
tvellalott
OPENING

It will be my burden of proof throughout this debate to provide arguments supporting the assertion that it is more logical to believe that no "God" exists. Let me remind my opponent and the voters that I have defined "God" specifically as a Personal God; one who not only created the Universe and exhibits the omni-max traits (that is omniscient, omnipotence and omni-benevolence) but who takes a personal interest in the happenings of humanity and answers prayers.

I would also like to add that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of God, since by all definitions he exists outside the laws of nature. It is NOT my burden of proof to prove that God doesn't exist, only to show it is more logical to believe that no God exists.

Thank you and good luck to my opponent.

ARGUMENTS

PRAYER
I assert that all prayers that are answered (for example, I pray to you Jesus, for my sick son to get better) are simply improbable events. People miraculously recover from illness regardless of which God, if any, is being prayed to on their behalf. This study [1] shows that not only did prayer NOT help people recover from illness, but that people who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications.
On the other hand, if you pray for something that is physically impossible (for example, I pray to you Allah to regrow my lost hand) it will never be answered. Ever.
If you consider this logically, it becomes clear that prayers are not answered and that any prayers which appear to have been answered are simply the product of coincidence.
Posted by tvellalott 2 years ago
tvellalott
SCRIPTURE
I assert that there is no scripture in existence that contains knowledge that is radically outside the knowledge of the men who lived at the time of its writing.
There are many websites which chronicle the fatal flaws within the most popular religious texts and it would be intellectually lazy for me to simply list them and flood my opponent with dozens of flaws to explain, so instead I challenge my opponent to show any piece of scripture which contains knowledge that would be impossible for the writers to have known.
I assert that all supposedly divinely-inspired scripture was simply written by men who, for better or worse, wished to exert their will on the people around them. To give my opponent something to respond to, I'll simply give some examples:
Slavery and misogyny in the Bible
War and misogyny in the Quran
Misogyny is a common theme in both books; logical deduction would indicate this is because these scriptures were written by men rather than because an omni-max, personal God favours men over women.
Slavery is condoned in the Bible; logical deduction would indicate this is because the people who wrote those sections of the Bible wanted slaves rather than because an omni-max, personal God condones slavery.
War is a strong theme in the Quran; logical deduction would indicate this is because the people who wrote the Quran were at war, rather than because an omni-max, personal God wanted a war.
Posted by tvellalott 2 years ago
tvellalott
EXISTENCE
I assert that the origin of the Universe occurred naturally and that no magical explanation is needed.
I assert that the origin of life on Earth occurred naturally and that no magical explanation is needed.

Science has come a long way in the past few hundred years.
Here are some questions. The explanation was once unknown by mankind and various mythologies was used to answer them
Why does it rain?
Why does the sun rise and set?
Why do people get sick?
Why do some crops succeed and some crops fail?
What causes the ocean's waves?
Why are some people beautiful and some people ugly?

Each of these questions was once answered with one God or another. We now have a variety of sciences to explain these things: meteorology, cosmology, medicine, advanced agriculture, tidal science and genetics (though some people are just unfortunate).

We have a variety of strong cosmological models for the origin of the Universe.
We have schools of science offering natural origins for life on Earth.

If one takes the time to look at the past and rationally look into the future, we can deduce that as these schools of science advance, they will gather stronger and stronger evidence in support of these theories and eventually these questions will be answered.

CONCLUSION

If God doesn't answer prayers, scripture isn't divinely inspired and theoretically we can naturally explain all of existence then what can we conclude?
God is imaginary and therefore belief in the existence of such beings is illogical.

I didn't want to bog down the debate with too much information too early, as it leaves us quarrelling about these arguments for the rest of the rounds, so I've kept it simple. If my opponent wants further evidence, clarification and/or explanation regarding these arguments, I'll be happy to provide them in the next round.
I will also provide my final two arguments.

Over to you.
Posted by tvellalott 2 years ago
tvellalott
1) LOL, tell me about it. I was going to edit/expand it yesterday but I didn't make it home until it was too late.
2) Thanks SO much.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 2 years ago
DakotaKrafick
1. How in the world were you unable to copy/paste an already-written argument within three days?
2. Sure, go ahead and post it in the comments.
Posted by tvellalott 2 years ago
tvellalott
Dakota, can I PLEASE post my argument here? It was already written; I was just going to copy/paste my argument from my previous debate of the same topic (which my opponent forfeited)???
Posted by tvellalott 2 years ago
tvellalott
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zetsubou 2 years ago
Zetsubou
tvellalottDakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeit round 2 and conceded in round 3
Vote Placed by airmax1227 2 years ago
airmax1227
tvellalottDakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF