The Instigator
MagicAintReal
Pro (for)
The Contender
WOLF.J
Con (against)

Rejecting The Existence Of God Is Reasonable

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  
Argument Due
We are waiting for WOLF.J to post their argument for round #4. If you are WOLF.J, login to see your options.
Time Remaining
00days20hours05minutes38seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 days ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 248 times Debate No: 108018
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (0)

 

MagicAintReal

Pro

*Voters must use Opt-In voting standards when voting.
*1st round is for acceptance.
*By accepting the debate, the definitions are agreed to.
*I request that moderators remove crappy votes.

Full Resolution
Rejecting the existence of god is reasonable.

Pro
Has 3 rounds each with a 10,000 character limit + 3 days to post.
Pro also has the BoP to show that rejecting the existence of god is reasonable.

Con
Has 3 rounds each with a 10,000 character limit + 3 days to post.
Con also has to negate Pro's claims in order to cast enough doubt on the resolution.


Definitions

rejecting - dismissing as inadequate, unacceptable, or faulty.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

existence - the fact of having objective reality.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

god - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

reasonable - having sound judgement.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

creator - an entity that brings something into existence via creation.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

creation - the process of bringing something into existence.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

process - a series of actions taken in order to achieve a particular end.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

series - a number of events of a similar or related kind coming one after another.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

after - in the time following an event.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

time - the indefinite continued progress of events and three-dimensional space regarded as fused in a four-dimensional continuum.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
WOLF.J

Con

I accept, however when it comes to the definition of existence, il be refering to definition 1.2 in the link, as everyone knows you cant physically prove god exists. Well followerofchrist1955 can, lol
Debate Round No. 1
MagicAintReal

Pro

Dear Con,
Why do you ignore me?
You never paid attention to me! You never even looked at me!
Sincerely, 1st Round Definitions

*Existence*

Opt-in voters should take note of the rules from the 1st round.
The rules are clear that by accepting, which Con managed to do correctly, one agrees to the definitions provided by me (Pro) in the 1st round.
Therefore, existence means "having objective reality" even if Con wants to violate the rules and attempt to make this debate about the "way of living" of the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.
Boo Con.


*Resolution*

I will be affirming that dismissing the objective reality of the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority as inadequate has sound judgment.

I will do this by showing that...


*Creation is Temporal*

Creation is a number of time-based actions, of a related kind, coming one after another, taken in order to bring something into existence.
Con has already agreed to this, given the definitions of this debate.
Therefore, creation is necessarily a temporal process that uses events, one after another, to bring something into existence.
This process, creator existing-->creating-->created product, is unavoidably time-based.
If there is no time, there is no creation.


*Precedence Is Temporal*

Creators not only use a time-based process consisting of one event after another, they also necessarily precede their creations.

The process of creator existing-->creating-->created product can only be described, if and only if the creator comes before, or precedes, its creation.

Well, before (precedence) is another temporal or time-based concept.
How could a creator precede its creation without time?

Con, can you distinguish between a creator and its created product without using time or temporal concepts?

I argue that without time, one cannot tell the difference between a creator and its created product; one wouldn't be able to tell if creation has occurred because there would be no precedence.


*Spacetime*

While you may get some differing physicists' opinions on whether or not space and time are the same thing, there is no dispute that they are interdependent.
In fact, that's why they put space and time on a continuum, spacetime.

"In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time."
http://www.fourmilab.ch...

Space is also currently expanding at a fixed rate proportional to the distance between the galaxies, called the Hubble Constant.
http://iopscience.iop.org...

What's great is that we can go back in time by using the inverse of the Hubble Constant and see how long the universe has been expanding.
Doing this indicates that space, and therefore time, were at one point very, very small, and as recent anisotropy probes have detected, there was a point when there was no space, therefore no time.
https://science.nasa.gov...

This means that our universe's origin is also the origin of spacetime.
When there was no universe, there was no space, therefore no time.

Spacetime and the passage thereof originated at the big bang, the origin of our universe.
Therefore, creation, which necessarily is based on spacetime, cannot occur without the universe's space existing first.
It'd be like saying that a creator used time to originate time...the temporal inadequacies should be obvious.

There is no creator of a universe that wasn't created and rejecting the use of time to originate time has sound judgment.


*Morality =/= god*

Morality is just behavior towards others, and when we consider the "others" toward whom we're behaving, actions that lead to the maintaining of homeostasis of those others are more moral than actions that lead away from the maintaining of homeostasis of those others.

Since homeostasis does not require a source of all moral authority, morality doesn't either.
Therefore rejecting the existence of the source of all moral authority has sound judgment.


*Conclusion*

Dismissing a creator of a universe that wasn't created is reasonable, because using time to originate time is a nonsensical concept.
Dismissing a source of all moral authority is reasonable, because no ultimate source is necessary to determine if something is moral or immoral; we actually have wonderful, natural mechanisms to tell the difference.

Con?
WOLF.J

Con

You know back in the olden days, when your mom was still using couldrons yeah, the sheeples believed that fairies lived in trees, hence why we say touch wood. Do fairies exist?, we will never know, n yet we still fear them!

Why? you ask, bc humanity has a natural phobia of the unknown, whether it be darkness, death, or your face!

I hope this answers a lot questions, have a good day!!
Debate Round No. 2
MagicAintReal

Pro

Thanks Con for that...argument?
Collection of statements?
Series of words barely strung together?
Thanks Con for whatever that just was.

*Responding to Con*

I hope it's obvious that my case was dropped like a bowling ball covered in Con's anal lube, so I need not rehash creation or precedence being temporal or that morality needs not an ultimate source.

On to what Con said...

Con blathers:
"You know back in the olden days, when your mom was still using couldrons yeah..."

My response:
Is this how British people refer to the past?
Oh the cauldron days were splendid, jammy, and proper!


Con informs:
"sheeples believed that fairies lived in trees."

My response:
Con is referring to the lesser-known animal that is half-sheep half-human (Homo Ovis Aries Sapien).
While analyzing Con's preferred sexual partners could explain a lot about Con, the fact that sheeple believe there are fairies in trees is irrelevant to whether or not it's reasonable to reject a creator of the universe/source of morality.


Con reckons:
"humanity has a natural phobia of the unknown, whether it be darkness, death, or your face!"

My response:
I get that Con is trying to say that humanity has a natural phobia of my face, but the idea that they have a fear of my face because it's unknown makes no sense.
Right?
Like if it's the case that my face is that bad that it's something to be feared, it would have to be known to be so hideous...Con's insult sucks.


*Conclusion*

I extend all arguments, and I await an actual response from Con.
WOLF.J

Con

voters, this man has clearly violated the laws of debate pleasantries, and he's being racist!

This man needs to be taught a lesson. And I have many to give!

For examples, did you know wolves don't actually howl at the moon, on the contrary, we be howling to god! Because wolves are really really intuitive beings, unlike humans. Humans are imbeciles. In the words of the infamous followerofchrist1955, yall human muppets are going to hell. Wolves on the other hand get to dine with vampires and lesbians for eternity. After the rapture, wolves will rule the world, just you wait n c. Don't believe me? You ignorant fool, how can you be so blind! Why do think the lesbians love watching/reading twilight, for them its their bible OKAY, so there's yr proof, now fvck off you racist 'biologist'. I got an E in my gcse biology, why??! Because wolves don't fvck about with the science. Apart from psychology, science is stupid. So stupid, why have bloody science when you can just follow bible 101,God recommends it. Nuff said, wolfy out!!
Debate Round No. 3
MagicAintReal

Pro

Well this just keeps getting better doesn't it?
Con has managed to make no attempt at casting doubt on the resolution.
What's worse is that Con has dragged readers through this debate with his lack of effort.
Worse still, Con's not very good at writing, so our eyes must suffer through it all.

*Wrappin' Up*

I maintain the rejection of a creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority for the untouched-by-Con reasons provided 2nd round.

Extend.


*Responding to Con*

Con goes off the rails and starts talking about wolves, vampires, lesbians, racism, and psychology, none of which are funny or relevant.
Boo Con.


Con asks:
"Did you know wolves don't actually howl at the moon?"

My response:
Did you know that irrelevant debaters litter the site with debate garbage?

Con continues:
"we be howling to god."

My response:
Irrelevant debaters howl to a creator of a universe that wasn't created?
You're the expert on this I guess.


Con inquires:
"Why do think the lesbians love watching/reading twilight, for them its their bible OKAY, so there's yr proof."

My response:
Lesbians + Werewolves + Vampires = Reason to accept a creator of a universe that wasn't created...baffling really.


*Conclusion*

Opt-in voters, please vote seriously and I apologize for Con's performance.
His owner should never have let him use a device to post.
I'm in utter awe of how stupid Con is...utter awe.
Wolfy should be put down like the dog he is.

The resolution is affirmed, vote Pro.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 day ago
MagicAintReal
Oh it's a British SAT.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 day ago
MagicAintReal
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm racist, and I've also never heard of the term gcse, what is that?
Posted by WOLF.J 1 day ago
WOLF.J
perhaps
Posted by WOLF.J 1 day ago
WOLF.J
racist, i got a gcse B in English tho. Despite my uni degree, i only got 4 out of 8 gcses, so perhaps I'm not very intelligence...
Posted by MagicAintReal 4 days ago
MagicAintReal
Who said physically necessary?
Objectively existing does not mean physically necessary.
Get here, fam!
Posted by WOLF.J 5 days ago
WOLF.J
Zeds fam Zeds, u must be insane if u want me to physically prove god exists, 1 sided debate , unlike my ones, Which are fair n real. None of this meme editing BS
Posted by MagicAintReal 5 days ago
MagicAintReal
Math's not your strong suit?
I get it.
Let me make it clear.
92% is higher than 82%, but either way, you lost, you should lose again, and you need to stop "coming at me bro."
You look kinda dumb doing it.
Posted by WOLF.J 5 days ago
WOLF.J
N besides it is a real definition, why else would it be listed. Just like fool has more than 1 definition, u fool!!
Posted by WOLF.J 5 days ago
WOLF.J
Come at me when your win ratio is as good as mine, u muppet
Posted by WOLF.J 5 days ago
WOLF.J
Come at me when your win ratio is as good as mine, u muppet
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.