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  
Debate Round Forfeited
WOLF.J has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 580 times Debate No: 108018
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (33)
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
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WOLF.J 4 months ago
WOLF.J
yes you are, if you say 'i dominate this website', chances are you have an inflated, fragile ego. Probably due to an unpleasant childhood. Like me, you want power. unlike me, your too afraid to admit your issues. So whose da real winner hey...
Posted by MagicAintReal 5 months ago
MagicAintReal
Great.
I'm not a narcissist.
Posted by WOLF.J 5 months ago
WOLF.J
Cool beans, also narcissists r insecure on the inside my friend.
Posted by MagicAintReal 5 months ago
MagicAintReal
Oh and I hope it's obvious that objective reality does not necessitate physicality and I pointed this out to you, fam.
That which exists and isn't physical is merely contingent on physical reality.
Posted by MagicAintReal 5 months ago
MagicAintReal
I will only recognize four of my 5 losses, because the last vote was removed three times prior for being so bad and then it was barely accepted the 4th time it was sent in.
whiteflame was just not doing well that day, I almost chalk it up to a mulligan on his part, and he was derelict in his duties to remove a clearly biased, vengeful, inadequate vote.

That said, I doubt you'll ever reach my win count or my win percentage or my ELO, so pointing out my losses is arbitrary; I am smart at making one-sided arguments.
Thanks.
Posted by WOLF.J 5 months ago
WOLF.J
didn't mean to write i'm tech. invisible, ignore that.-
typo.
Posted by WOLF.J 5 months ago
WOLF.J
dude you have more losses than me, n all my losses are npt even losses, I'm tech. invisible. yep! you have a good win ratio bc you're smart at making one sided arguments. my man wanted me to physically prove god exists, looooooooooooooooool.
Posted by MagicAintReal 5 months ago
MagicAintReal
Does it now?
Why is it that no one can defeat my retarded atheism?
I've been dominating this site for years without a single valid rebuttal.
Why do you think my arguments are so retarded then?
Posted by JamesCroft 5 months ago
JamesCroft
This sums up the retarded atheism of today.
Posted by MagicAintReal 5 months ago
MagicAintReal
Hahah, nice
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.