The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JediDude
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

SCIENCE = GOD'S PERSONAL PROPERTY (PROOF of GOD)

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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...
JediDude
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 434 times Debate No: 103467
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

P1: Without God, nobody could make an objective cognitive distinction between performing the scientific method correctly and performing it incorrectly.

(Without God, any cognitive distinctions that we may make would necessarily amount to mere subjective opinions, not objective facts. The scientific method deals with objective facts as opposed to dealing with subjective opinions, and actually, subjective opinions have no place in the scientific method. The field of Logic is also the purview of objective facts as opposed to subjective opinions, and actually, subjective opinions also have no place in the field of Logic. Therefore without God, nobody could perform the scientific method correctly, nor without God could anyone even know with objective certainty whether or not he was performing the scientific method correctly).

P2: We can indeed make an objective cognitive distinction between performing the scientific method correctly and performing it incorrectly.

Conclusion: Therefore God exists in reality.
JediDude

Con

Contention 1: Pro is using fallacious arguments in an effort to reinforce a baseless argument

Subpoint A: Pro never once says how his supernatural deity can change a subjective fact to an objective fact

This means that your entire argument is based completely on us assuming that this Deity can somehow reassure me
that I am objectively typing this on my mom's laptop right now pretending to do school work in my house while my dog
is trying to jump on me, instead of me subjectively saying all of those things. The only problem is once you start to use this
sort of argument, it becomes very easy to simply say anything you want. In which case I can objectively high jack this debate
with my own fallacious argument.

Contention 2: Science is the Property of the Flying Spaghetti Monster who says that his existence is objectively true, and that
he cannot be disproven. However, he states in his holy text, which is objectively true under Pro's own argument, that he cannot be proven
by science, ergo Pro must concede this debate since all Con has to do is say that God cannot be proven by Science.

Contention 3: Pro's Argument does not conform to the rules of the debate, since he is not following HIS OWN RESOLUTION.

Subpoint A: The resolution states Science=God's Personal Property (Proof of God). For one, I can say for certain that Proof of God's Existence
in reality is not the same thing as saying that it is God's Personal Property, which doesn't even connect to proof of god. For one, I could simply
forge God's existence with the help of an accountant who knows how to cook the books, and then buy Science under that false identity.
That however doesn't mean he exists in reality. Certaintly his alleged God exists on paper, but is he a real person?
No. Ergo, the resoultion itself is ridiculous, and this debate pointless.

Contention 4: There is no need for Science to be objectively true, since Science is not mathematics.
Objectivity is a goal we can aspire to, but it can never be attained. To understand why, first we need to clarify what exactly is meant by objectivity.

Before we discuss science, let's start with mathematics. Most people would say that 2+2=4 is an example of an objective mathematical truth. But, in fact, it is only true relative to a certain set of axioms. You and I are free to choose different axioms, and 2+2=4 may be false for you but true for me. So, it is clearly not a completely objective truth. Similarly, if I adopt axioms of Euclidean geometry, the interior angles of a triangle always add up to 180", while if you adopt axioms of non-Euclidean geometry, they do not. So, this geometrical proposition is not a completely objective truth. Because mathematical truth depends on our free, subjective choice of axioms, it is not completely objective. However, if we both adopt the same axioms, we will both necessarily agree upon what is true and what is false. In that sense, mathematical truth is objective, but only if we agree to constrain our subjective choices in the same way.

Now, let's consider objectivity in empirical science. Most people would say that the 100-yard length of a football field is an example of an objective fact. But, in fact, according to relativity, intervals of length are only well defined relative to our choice of reference frame. Such choice is a free, subjective choice. You can choose one frame, and I can choose another. And the football field will have one length in your frame and another length in mine. We can say the length of the field is objective only if we agree to constrain our subjective choice of reference frame in the same way, e.g., we both adopt the frame of the football field.

Actually, even if we are both in the rest frame of the field, its 100-yard length is still not completely objective. I could be using a mis-calibrated yardstick, or an idiosyncratic measurement procedure, or a survey yard instead of the common yard. I could even be using octal instead of decimal to represent my measurement results. A measurement of length is thus objective only relative to a choice of measurement procedure, units, and numerical representation.

All of this illustrates the fact that we can treat something as objective only to the extent that we define and explicitly specify the subjective conditions under which it is defined or measured. Objectivity arises as the result of imposing common constraints on subjective choices in our definitions and procedures.

The power and effectiveness of empirical science is a direct result of the degree to which it precisely and explicitly specifies the definitions and methods presupposed in making empirical measurements and formulating mathematical theories. To the extent that we constrain our subjective choices to these precisely specified conditions, we will eliminate arbitrary uncontrolled subjective variables. That is, that which is objective is clearly defined only by clearly defining and rigorously constraining what is subjective. The objective arises by constraining the subjective.

Conclusion: Pro's contentions are fallacious, Pro's entire Argument is baseless and fallacious, and this entire debate is a fallacious trap so that Pro can have an ego trip.

Thank you and I would like to strongly encourage a Con Vote.
Debate Round No. 1
Purushadasa

Pro

My opponent wrote:

"Subpoint A: Pro never once says how his supernatural deity"

I never mentioned anything of the sort, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"This means that your entire argument"

You have yet to address my actual argument -- you have so-far only set up a straw man and argued against your own strawman logical fallacy.

Contention 2: Science is the Property of the Flying Spaghetti Monster"

You are clearly a deluded moron and an ignorant douchebag that is incapable of engaging in actual debate: Thanks for your time! =)

"Contention 3: Pro's Argument does not conform to the rules of the debate,"

Yes it does.

" since he is not following HIS OWN RESOLUTION."

Yes I am.

"Subpoint A: The resolution states Science=God's Personal Property (Proof of God). "

Yes, I did, and that is a fact, actually.

"Certaintly his alleged God exists on paper"

There is only one God, and he is not mine. In fact, you and I both belong to him, as does everyone else.

," but is he a real person?"

Yes, he is.

" Ergo, the resoultion itself is ridiculous"

No it isn't."

", and this debate pointless."

Debating with an ignorant two-legged animal such as yourself is pointless, yes.

"Contention 4: There is no need for Science to be objectively true,"

I never claimed such a need, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

" since Science is not mathematics."

Der! No kidding, you idiot.

"Objectivity is a goal we can aspire to, but it can never be attained."

The above statement is a self-refuting statement, and therefore it cannot possibly be true.

Therefore its logical converse must necessarily be true:

"Objectivity is a goal we can attain."

"Most people would say that 2+2=4 is an example of an objective mathematical truth."

They are correct -- it is.

" But, in fact, it is only true relative to a certain set of axioms."

That is a false statement. In reality, 2 + 2 = 4 is objectively true.

"2+2=4 may be false for you but true for me."

That is a false statement: 2 + 2 = 4 is objectively true whether or not any human or group of humans agrees.

" So, it is clearly not a completely objective truth."

Yes, it is an objective truth.

" Because mathematical truth depends on our free, subjective choice of axioms"

No it doesn't: You do not know the meaning of the word "objective." LOL SMH =)

", it is not completely objective."

Yes it is.

"we will both necessarily agree upon what is true and what is false."

You do not know what thew word "objective" means, and in your above statement, you are referring to subjective opinions, not to objective truths. An objective truth is something that is true whether any human being or group of human beings agrees with it: You are too stupid and too uninformed to be qualified to engage in a debate that involves the concept of objectivity.

" In that sense, mathematical truth is objective, but only if we agree"

Again, you do not know what the word "objective" means -- poor silly kid! You are under the age of 12, aren't you?

"And the football field will have one length in your frame and another length in mine."

No it wouldn't.

" We can say the length of the field is objective only if we agree"

Again, you do not know the meaning of the word "objective," and as such, you are 100% unqualified to engage in a debate that includes the concept of objectivity.

"A measurement of length is thus objective only relative to a choice"

Again, you fail to understand what the word "objective" means, so you are unqualified to engage in any debate that includes the concept of objectivity.

"All of this illustrates the fact that we can treat something as objective only to the extent that we define and explicitly specify the subjective conditions"

Again, you fail to understand what the word "objective" means, so you are unqualified to engage in any debate that includes the concept of objectivity.

" Objectivity arises as the result of imposing common constraints on subjective choices in our definitions and procedures."

Again, you fail to understand what the word "objective" means, so you are unqualified to engage in any debate that includes the concept of objectivity.

"That is, that which is objective is clearly defined only by clearly defining and rigorously constraining what is subjective. The objective arises by constraining the subjective."

Again, you fail to understand what the word "objective" means, so you are unqualified to engage in any debate that includes the concept of objectivity.

"Conclusion: Pro's contentions are fallacious,"

No they aren't. Also, without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between the logically sound and the logically fallacious.

" Pro's entire Argument is baseless and fallacious,"

No it isn't. Also, without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between the logically sound and the logically fallacious; and without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between the properly based and the baseless.

"and this entire debate is a fallacious"

The only fallacious elements of this debate were inserted into it by you. Also, without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between the logically sound and the logically fallacious.

"trap so that Pro can have an ego trip."

Without God, having an ego trip could not be objectively wrong. Also, your entire belief in atheist Dogma is nothing but your own silly ego trip.

You lost this debate, and you lost it HARD: Thanks for your time! =)
JediDude

Con

Since this round only consisted of replies, I will follow suit.

In this round Pro has claimed that he has never once brought up a supernatural deity, and since he has not defined his own terms, I will do it myself.
Webster Dictionary defines God as: a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
Supernatural is defined as: attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
Ergo, your god is a Supernatural Deity. If you don't want me to call it that, then define your own terms.

I would like the Judges to acknowledge the fact that the rest of his counter arguments consist of personal attacks, of which you cannot find in my own argument. All of my contentions are based on attacking his argument, not the person making them.

The next 5 replies are simply saying Yes it is, which does not constitute an actual reply or answer to the statement.

The next reply after that is, guess what, another personal attack.

In the next reply he claims that he did not say that Science yet he claimed in his first contention "Without God, nobody could make an objective cognitive distinction between performing the scientific method correctly and performing it incorrectly." Which can be dumbed down to, without god, objective truth would be impossible, which it needs.

Oh look! Another personal attack!

Next on our tour of Pro's Argument, If you look on your computer screen, you can see an Affirming the Consequent Fallacy!

In the next series of reply, you can see that Pro clearly does not understand what an axiom is!
You can see the definition here: http://www.dictionary.com...

But since that's not enough, let me explain what I meant.
Let's say Susie has 2 apples, and Joey gives her 2 apples. Susie notices one of them is a crab apple. So the total amount of APPLES is 4, but the amount of edible ones is 3.

In the next statement, Pro tries to redefine objective truth. It's actual definition is: A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject. ... This second meaning of objectivity is sometimes used synonymously with neutrality.

This means it is impossible for the existence of god to be objectively true, in the same way that of his lack of existence.

"Again, you fail to understand what the word "objective" means, so you are unqualified to engage in any debate that includes the concept of objectivity."

Clearly I do, and Clearly you are trying to avoid writing an actual reply.

I find it hilarious how you go out of your way to block people who have previously destroyed you, and how you like to harass people you are currently debating.

Once again, I would like to strongly urge a CON vote.
Debate Round No. 2
Purushadasa

Pro

My opponent wrote:

"your god is "

There is only one God, and he is not mine. Actually, you, I, and all other human being belong to him.

"personal attacks"

Without God, personal attacks could not be objectively wrong.

"which does not constitute an actual reply or answer to the statement.

Actually, they do -- that is my way of pointing out the fact that none of your claims have any evidence to back them up.

"another personal attack."

Without God, personal attacks could not be objectively wrong.

"In the next reply he claims that he did not say that Science yet he claimed in his first contention"

What???

"Without God, nobody could make an objective cognitive distinction between performing the scientific method correctly and performing it incorrectly."

That is true, actually.

Also, thank you for finally quoting me correctly ONE TIME during this entire debate: All the other times were straw man logical fallacies on your part.

"Which can be dumbed down to, without god, objective truth would be impossible, which it needs."

Not my statement -- just another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"personal attack"

Without God, making personal attacks could not be objectively wrong.

"Next on our tour of Pro's Argument, If you look on your computer screen, you can see an Affirming the Consequent Fallacy!"

I did not commit that fallacy anywhere, actually.

"In the next series of reply, you can see that Pro clearly does not understand what an axiom is!"

Yes I do.

" Pro tries to redefine objective truth."

No I didn't.

"it is impossible for the existence of god to be objectively true,"

No it isn't.

" in the same way that of his lack of existence."

If you are claiming that God's supposed "lack of existence" cannot be objectively true, then you are correct about that, because his existence is objectively true.

"Again, you fail to understand what the word "objective" means, so you are unqualified to engage in any debate that includes the concept of objectivity."

"Clearly I do, "

No, you really don't.

"I find it hilarious how you go out of your way to block people who have previously destroyed you, and how you like to harass people you are currently debating."

Can you say "personal attack?"

I won this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
JediDude

Con

Once again Pro tries to declare himself winner before the debate is already over. Apparently he doesn't understand the point of voting Post-Debate.

Instead of following up with more replies like Pro has done this round, I'll try to take the brunt of organization for the two of us.

You see, Judges, throughout this entire debate Pro's quality of argument has quickly deteriorated. Clearly he is used to simply blocking people rather than actually debating them. Pro continues to harass me outside of the rounds with personal attacks, and insults. I think that his quality of character is beginning to show itself, especially in this debate. This clearly shows that Pro does not deserve to win this debate, especially since his arguments have no merit, his character is low (if there even is any left), and his bad attitude makes this debate unpleasant.

Throughout the previous rounds, Pro has not substantiated his statements. Instead he has preffered using throw away sentences such as "Without God, personal attacks could not be objectively wrong." or "just another straw man logical fallacy". Clearly he does not understand what a Straw Man Fallacy is, and neither does he understand what the Philosophical Study of Morality is.

Pro has not addressed the first contention, subpoint A of my arguments in this debate, instead choosing instead to attack words or phrases in the other contentions. I can only assume he agrees with me.

Overall, Pro's Arguments lack merit, he has a poor attitude, his contentions are fallacious, his entire Argument is baseless and fallacious, and this entire debate is a fallacious trap so that he can have an ego trip.

I would like to strongly urge a Con Vote.
Debate Round No. 3
Purushadasa

Pro

My opponent wrote:

"Pro continues to harass me outside of the rounds with personal attacks, and insults."

Without God, harassment, personal attacks, and insults could not be objectively wrong.

" I think that his quality of character"

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between good and bad quality of character.

Also, you are personally attacking me, harassing me, and insulting me -- you are not addressing my argument.

"arguments have no merit"

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between merit in an argument and lack thereof.

", his character is low (if there even is any left),"

Without God, nobody could make such an objective distinction.

Also, you are attacking me personally, not addressing my arguments.

" and his bad attitude makes this debate unpleasant."

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between good and bad attitudes.

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between the pleasant and the unpleasant.

The actual reason why I found this debate so much more pleasant than you do is the fact that I won it and you lost it.

I substantiated all of my statements, and you failed to substantiate any of yours. Therefore I won this debate: Thanks for your time! =)

"Without God, personal attacks could not be objectively wrong."

That is true.

"just another straw man logical fallacy".

You did commit many straw man logical fallacies in this debate, but the so-called "voting" system on this site is hopelessly biased and utterly useless, so I clearly won this debate, no matter how anyone votes. You are constantly appealing to the biased so-called "voters" rather than appealing to logic or actual support for your silly and incorrect claims. Therefore you clearly lost this debate, no matter how anyone votes.

"Clearly he does not understand what a Straw Man Fallacy is"

Yes, I certainly do: It is when you write your own statement and pretend that I wrote it, and then proceed to argue against your own statement rather than addressing any of my actual statements. This intellectually dishonest tactic has been used against me literally hundreds of times in the short time that I have been debating here (almost exclusively by believers in atheist Dogma), and in fact, you also committed that logical fallacy, many times during this debate. Therefore I clearly won this debate, no matter how anyone votes.

"Philosophical Study of Morality "

Without God, there could be no objective morality.

.

"I can only assume "

That is probably true.

"Arguments lack merit"

Without God, nobody could make an objective assessment of merit Vs lack thereof.

"poor attitude"

Without God, having a poor attitude could not be objectively wrong.

Also, that is a personal attack against me, and it fails to address my actual arguments.

", contentions are fallacious,"

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between the valid and the fallacious.

"have an ego trip."

Without God, having an ego trip could not be objectively wrong.

In fact, your entire acceptance of the belief in atheist Dogma is nothing but your own silly ego trip: Grow up.

"I would like to strongly urge a Con Vote."

Of course you would, you shameless and ignorant vote-panderer, because you know damn well that you actually lost this debate, and you are desperate to salve your wounded ego by appealing to an inherently biased, unfair, dishonest, and useless so-called "voting" process.

The fact is that I clearly won this debate, no matter how anyone votes: Thanks for your time! =)
JediDude

Con

Once again, Purushadasa seems to not understand how a debate is formatted, and instead of learning it at the ripe old age of 49, decides to simply accuse me of vote pandering. Despite that fact, he even admits to the fact that he won't receive any votes! I would like to point out, that there are Christians that have viewed this debate, and probably wouldn't even mind voting for him, but as one of the Christians in the comment section pointed out, the quality of his arguments have rapidly deteriorated, and he continues to use Ad Hominem attacks rather than actually addressing arguments.

It seems that he only knows how to accuse me of using Straw Man Fallacies, and typing out a non-sensical statement without any sort of explaination afterwards. At this point, I can only assume he completely and 100% agrees with me.

He has not in anyway addressed contention 1 sub point A, and despite his acknowledgement of the rest of my contentions, he has not made a valid argument against them. At this point I can only assume he has been reading the Holy Bible of The Flying Spaghetti Monster (Sauce be upon him), and that I have properly converted him to FSM.

Once again, I'd like to strongly urge a Con Vote, and since Pro has not said otherwise, he must also think the same!
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Thank you all for so many kind and intelligent posts.

My engagement on this site was intended, from the beginning, to be a nothing more than a temporary experiment.

I didn't know specifically when it was going to end, until this evening: My girlfriend, Bhaktin Caroline, said something to me that inspired me to make tonight the end of the experiment.

Bhaktin Caroline matters much, much more than this website.

If you are still feeling overly attached after I leave, I apologize, but I will still be leaving nonetheless: I won't be engaging in any further debates, arguments, or conversations on this site, and nor will I be reading any further posts uploaded by its kind and intelligent members -- starting now.

You can argue amongst yourselves, from now on.

Good-bye! =)
Posted by NDECD1441 5 months ago
NDECD1441
Without god, god could not possibly be correct.
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Without God, personal attacks could not be objectively wrong.
Posted by qwzx 5 months ago
qwzx
Pros quality in its arguments fell dramatically after round 1. A bunch of ad-hominem attacks...dang

I am dissapointed
Posted by canis 5 months ago
canis
You are saying humans are gods..Why not just say we are humans.Then you do not have to create a god..
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Someone unimportant and unknown to me wrote:

"I want to debate you"

Everyone wants to debate me, little girl! LOL

" I want to debate you"

Yeah, I know you do: Whose problem is that? LOL SMH =)
Posted by BMyers 5 months ago
BMyers
I want to debate you - however I have looked into your demeanor in various other debates you post. Before I accept I wish to hear your format to this debate that you will not deviate from. How are the Rounds to be used? I have seen previous debates in which you declare victory after people merely 'accept' in R1 screaming how "they didn't prove anything." In what way will you accept new information that contradicts your biases for an actual 'debate' to transpire?

Like I said, I want to debate you (I'm sure we are both mutually arrogant with our self-perceived "skill") but I also want a clear understanding in the way a full 4 round debate will go.

You can go read my comment on the poll asking for you to be "stopped" and why I voted No anytime you'd like - I am not doing this with any projection of intimidation, but trying to provide you with the challenge you keep asking for.
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Good point, Solipsist!

=)
Posted by SolispsisticMind 5 months ago
SolispsisticMind
I'm not sure a four-point victory margin, based on one person voting, constitutes a "complete annihilation"...
Posted by cakerman 5 months ago
cakerman
I completely annihilated you in our last debate, and you're afraid of being waffle stomped live again, that's why you set the requirements so I couldn't debate you
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 5 months ago
Phenenas
PurushadasaJediDudeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 5 months ago
dsjpk5
PurushadasaJediDudeTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03