The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Resolved: It is more rational to worship the stars than the Judeo-Christian God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/22/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,245 times Debate No: 18439
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Before I even begin with definitions, do not take this debate if you are Calvin_Cambridge, Kohai, ScarletGhost, Samian96, or Darknes.


Stars: Massive, luminous ball of plasma held together by gravity.
Rational: Agreeable with reason.

Burden of Proof: The BoP will be shared. Con cannot win just by poking holes in my vase, he must build his own that worshipped God is both better and more rational. Think of it as a tug of war: Con must build his own case and argue effectively for the win rather than the entire burden being on me.

Best of luck to Con.

First round is only acceptance and definitional comments.


I would like to point out that I, and any rational observer, cannot come from the assumption of metaphysical naturalism (the spiritual world does not exist) or one of nihilism, but rather from (as Socrates did) from the standpoint of ignorance as to whether the spiritual world exists and whether absolute truth and true meaning exist. This should be the debate's starting score, with both sides having to defend any arguments they make for and against a metaphysical-naturalistic/nihilistic worldview.

Last time I checked, I am not Calvin_Cambridge, Kohai, ScarletGhost, Samian96, or Darknes. Therefore I am eligible to take this debate.

Definitions are, of course, important and are discussed in detail below:

I will take the Orthodox Christian/Lewisian Christian conception of God. This conception of God differs greatly from the Protestant view (and I'm not entirely clear on exactly what the Jewish view is, although I think for Orthodox Jews it's fairly similar). I will be using this conception of God as it is the one that, to my observation, makes sense. I will not defend other conceptions and views of God, as I would probably agree they are ridiculous.

I am afraid there is some ambiguity still with the definition of "The Stars". Could you clarify whether you mean (definitions from Merriam-Webster's) 1." a : a natural luminous body visible in the sky especially at night b : a self-luminous gaseous spheroidal celestial body of great mass which produces energy by means of nuclear fusion reactions." or 2. "a planet or a configuration of the planets that is held in astrology to influence one's destiny or fortune —usually used in plural."

The definition of "rational" begs the meaning of reason. I will not argue solely from naturally-provable arguments but also from rational arguments not necessarily based on natural knowledge, and so we must come up with a definition of reason. This is an extremely hard word to define, but I propose that we define reason as the examination of belief and knowledge in accordance with the laws of Socratic/Aristotelian logic.

The other extremely important word is "worship". The problem with this word is, at least under the Orthodox conception of God, "worship" means something a bit different than what is normally meant by that word. However, the definition of worship from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary: ": reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence." will suffice for a suitable definition at least for this preliminary round.

I have a problem with the defined burden of proof. You have said that God is both "better" and "more rational". The resolution says nothing about "better", and that term is so ambiguous as to be practically meaningless to the debate as it could mean "more useful" (a definition that would make the negative an impossible side to defend), "more true" (saying the same thing as "more rational"), or "more right" (which would be either nonsense or begging the question of the existence of God, in that if God does exist, then to render worship to the stars would be wrong, and if God does not exist, then there would be no difference in right and wrong between the two). I propose, rather, that we evaluate arguments based only upon their truth, as qualified through logic, and not upon which argument is "better".

However, I do agree to a system in which both sides must make and defend positive arguments for their side as well as making negative arguments against the other side.

I wish that understanding would be gained by this debate and that in this debate the truth would be weighed and shown clearly.

I further propose that the we may, in writing their cases and such, be free to question each other about each others' thoughts and cases and arguments and such in the comments with reasonable expectation of answer.
Debate Round No. 1


It seems the debate will have to be continued elsewhere since Con and I are having definitional issues.

To clarify, I'm not explicitly defending a naturalistic worldview here. This debate was actually intended to be a little lighthearted mixing in elements of cosmology, ethics, ontology, and certainly where ever else the debate goes.

I'm also not familiar with the Orthodox Christian/Lewisian God. You're going to have to describe your God more thoroughly so I can gain a better idea before I go ahead arguing against something I don't truly understand. In terms of the stars definition, I do mean the first definition mentioned by Con. Is he, for example, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient?

The issue of pinning down "rational" is definitely a hurdle, but I don't mind leaving the word as it because it's doubtful that two individuals with fundamentally different worldviews would agree on this term. I don't mind leaving this one to be judged by fellow DDOers and we're clearly going to have to push our own cases for the validity of empirical evidence, the value of worship, or whatever issues arise here. I hope that answered the question, as you mentioned it's a difficult word to really define. People naturally weigh different sorts of arguments or types of evidence differently and I just feel that's an inherent bias we'll have to deal with among voters. We could really have an entire discussion on that topic alone.

The Merriam-Webster's definition of worship is fine. I also understand Con's gripe with "better," the word should be ignored as this is my second debate on this topic (this topic has slight modifications) and I cut and pasted my opening onto here. Regardless, just ignore the word "better" as it doesn't apply to this debate and I define it more carefully in my other debate.


I will just go with my critique of the topic and wait to see what you have to say in defense of it in the next round.

A major problem with saying the "Judeo-Christian God" is that there are many, many, many different ideas of who/what God is. I will be defending a roughly Orthodox conception of the Judeo-Christian God.

The Bible describes the Judeo-Christian God as having two attributes that are incredibly important to understanding God. First, God is Most High, or in easier logical terms God is the basis of everything. Second, God is agape, which is a Greek word for something like "unconditional love, charity, selflessness, humaneness". C.S. Lewis described it as the type of love that always works for the ultimate interest of the other party despite feelings or circumstances.

Now to begin the debate.

At first, we must deal with two scenarios, first, that God does exist, and second, that God does not exist. The first question that must be asked, in looking at this line of reasoning, is "from whence everything"?

The self could have created the world. Everything you experience could be made up by the self but not actually there. I think, however, there is a fatal flaw to this argument. Knowing my desires, it seems quite unlikely that my self would have invented a world in which these desires are so often frustrated and in which life is often quite unpleasant. The existence of pain and evil would seem to be a fatal flaw in the solipsist view.

Since the self did not create the universe, man is forced to accept that something larger than himself is responsible for everything. When we look at this world, which we know was not created by the self, we see that it has order. Order does not seem to be the natural state of everything due to the existence of entropy. Yet the universe seems at least to operate by laws, and laws that cannot be broken. A rock dropped off a cliff will always fall to the bottom if uninhibited by another force.

Yet the tendency of the universe is towards chaos, disorder, and imbalance. Indeed, even the problem of existence itself points towards extra-natural phenomena. All the universe appears to have come into being in a cataclysmic event around 15 billion years ago. The universe began to exist, and everything that begins to exist has a cause. Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

In short, critical examination of science, and human idea and belief, and even desire points towards the existence of something which is the source of all truth (natural and supernatural), (moral) goodness, and success. In short, the universe points towards the existence of a Most High.

A basis of everything, if you will.


I can expound this further in subsequent rounds.

2 possibilities exist: 1. God exists and 2. God does not exist. If God exists, then it would be completely irrational to worship a ceated thing ather than the basis of everything. If God does not exist, then it would be irrational to worship anything. Therefore, on balance, it is more rational to worship God than the stars.
Debate Round No. 2


I'm aware that there are many different definitions of God. However, I did include "Judeo" which should immediately exclude any reference to the Holy Trinity or other multi-part Gods. When this phrase is used it most often means the God of the three O's, which you haven't directly addressed whether you believe in that God. Therefore, we can't begin this debate until you've explicitly defined your God.

Secondly, this debate cannot begin in round 3 as it is not intended to be a 2 round debate assuming ideal circumstances. I would be willing to start another debate with you once you have defined your God more thoroughly. Lastly, I will be granting the existence of a metaphysical being, although our conceptions will certainly be different. I'll send a new challenge if you're up for it, it's just a little late into the debate to get a debate going.


Valtarov forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


OMGJustinBieber forfeited this round.


Valtarov forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Valtarov 5 years ago
Contrary to what you think, xxx200, worship is not about getting what you want. Worship is not a selfish but selfless act. It is an act of submission and praise to God's truth and glory and lifesaving-help (ezer in Hebrew). You don't worship God to get anything; to do so is to completely mis the point.

Also what's wrong is to say they gained nothing trough the worship of God. Worship did gain most of the saints very little in material possessions, the saints seem to be as a group far happier than most modern people. They lost life of one sort but gained life of a different sort, and a life that seems far more fulfilled and eternal than the one most modern people live.

The ultimate act of worship is obedience to the commands of God. Jesus's command was to "Love one another as I have loved you." Jesus lives a life of total selfless devotion to others and calls all humanity to live lives of agape as He did. Confucius said that the only way to be ultimately happy is to help others, and he was right. Virtue, as Socrates believed, leads to a reward far less obvious and yet far better than the pursuit of greed and vice.

Also, the moon isn't a star. Praying to any star will not get you what you want, because stars run not upon intelligence but upon fixed natural laws that will change because of any pathetic human mewling.

If we praise the stars, it ought only to be to worship them as a reflection of the glory of their Creator.
Posted by xxx200 5 years ago
first of all why people worship god ? according to me, they worship god to get what they want. now based on this light lets see if judeo-christian (jc) god or the stars give us what we want or not. jc gods is worshipped from centuries past the worshippers got nothing in their life. people's sufferins did notend a bit. all so called miracles are proved false later there is no point of worshipping jc god.

now letse what stars can give us. stars can affect our planet in many ways. moon causes tides. the sun brngs life on earth. other stars will have other effects, if we find, we will get it. so there are, i think, visible benefits in worshipping stars. so i think that worshpping stars through practice of astrology can solve our problems.

therefore i agree to worship stars.
Posted by popculturepooka 5 years ago
Welcome back, valtarov.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
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: FAIL DEBATE, as both sides dropped out... (checking the voting period debates, from Least To Most votes. By giving this one, it won't be prioritized in the system anymore.)