Resolved: The most logical position for belief is Agnostism
Debate Rounds (4)
Con must argue that the most logical position to have is either a specific religion, deism, or atheism. I would ask that my opponent has a first paragraph where he specifies which belief he believes is the most logical to hold.
Some definitions that my opponent must either agree to, or change in his first paragraph of round one.
Atheism- The belief that god does not exist.
Agnosticism- The belief that god may or may not exist, usually combined with the sentiment of a theistic god being especially unlikely.
Deism- The belief that god(s) have undefined properties, and do not necessarily actively engage in our world
Theism- The belief in a god(s) that has a strict set of controlled and organized beliefs.
Round one is for acceptance.
Con may not make any new arguments in round four, but may summarize or restate past arguments, and refute any new arguments presented by me in round four.
If Con has any issues with these guidelines, he must address them in the first paragraph of round one.
Good luck to my opponent.
I will argue that Agnostism is not the most logical by proving, using science and logic, that there is a God.
The God that I will be arguing is the Catholic/Christian idea of God.
The burden for the con is to prove that there is a God, thus Agnostism is not the most logical
The burden of the pro is to prove that there is a possibility that a God does not exist.
God: a singular being that is omniscient, all knowing, and all powerful as in He can create something out of nothing; Catholic God
Evolution allows for organisms, once life forms, to evolve into complex beings capable of contemplating their own existence. Through natural selection, superior genes survive more and flourish, while poor genes (except for recessive) die out, or do not remain prevalent in a population. Gradually, beings with more brainpower become a higher percent of the population, and the intelligence of a population increases. So god is unnecessary to cause the creation of intelligent beings once certain proteins begin to form.
2. Logical inconsistencies within the idea of a Catholic god.
The idea of a god that is all knowing, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, with a master plan that supports free will has many logical inconsistencies.
A. All knowing. To claim this is irrational, because there could always be something that you don't know that you don't know. In other words, you are unaware there is knowledge you don't have. Even if you did have all knowledge it would still be an irrational claim, because any intelligent being would be aware of the ability for there to be something that he did not
B. The master plan and free will. How can a being possibly have both a master plan and let things have free will? Would he respect someone's free will to break his plan? Is he okay with that? And how does he support free will? He spent a large portion of the old testament ordering people around? And for that matter, how is he all good if his master plan requires people to go to hell? Or millions of innocents to die horribly and painfully? How is that a good plan?
C. Omnibenevolent and omnipotent. If there were someone who had a portal gun, and was in the time of the early rise of Hitler, and could have teleported him and any other important people in the Nazi party to Siberia to live there and not really cause harm to anyone, that person would be reprehensible for not doing so. So if god has the ability to stop any and all evil, or at least things like earthquakes and tornadoes that kill without free will being involved, then isn't that not "all good"? Or does might make right?
These logical inconsistencies make the Catholic idea of god especially unlikely.
3. Science and proof
Basically, to prove things, you must have evidence for them. The positive assertion, that there is a god, or that there isn't must be proven. Unless the idea of god can be proven or disproven, then agnosticism is the logical position to take on the stance of god. We cannot know whether god doesn't exist, because it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. However, the idea of god must be proven. It is not true simply because the negative cannot be proven.
4. Other faiths
So, even if there was a god. OR at least the possibility of one, humans have worshiped a great many gods. Judaism isn't even this worlds oldest religion, and for almost the entirety of history, the entire eastern segment of our world remained untouched by Christianity, and Native Americans had never heard of Jesus until white people came. So, even if it were likely that there was a god, the probability that it is your god is very unlikely.
Sorry, my sister got into a an accident so I did not have time the past two days to post my arguments.
Please post something and I will post my argument soon enough
And please capitalize God because we are discussing God and not some polytheistic god.
"And please capitalize God because we are discussing God and not some polytheistic god."
If you are unable to prove that not only must a deity exist, but your deity, then discussing polytheism is very relevant.
Since there is nothing for me to refute in this round, I will only post one new argument.
There are two types of causality, infinite and finite. Infinite causality would mean that everything must have a cause, meaning that there is no original cause, which does not fit in with traditional Catholic beliefs.
Then there could be finite causality. Finite causality would mean that there can be some original cause.
Many times I have heard theists argue that the earth is too complex to not have a designer. This assertion is wrong. If the earth is too complex to be caused by itself or by nothing, then how can God, a complex being escape the same logic you just employed? The argument of complex things having a creator, simply bolsters the claim of a single energetic event, something from nothing creating everything.
And the claim of "something can't come from nothing", a claim I hear many times, simply argues against God, who is somehow above the logic just employed.
The assertion by Ray Comfort, a debater against evolution and pro Christian theism, often claims something along the lines of "a painting has a painter, so the earth has a creator, because it is obviously perfect". Not only are we not in a perfect world (storms, earthquakes, disease, starvation, biological systems in humans and animals that any engineering or biology student would be able to design much better, vestigial structures, etc.) we have experience with paintings. We have never seen paintings pop up on their own, or created simply by randomness. However, in the field of universe creation we have no experience to go by. We have never observed anything being created, so the extrapolation is completely uncalled for.
TheHighwayman forfeited this round.
Other than that I have nothing new to say. Vote for me please, as I was present all four rounds, and I believe I have presented the stronger argument.
I hope my opponent's sister is doing well.
I would love to debate my opponent in another debate
Please begin the debate on friday though
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.