The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
joshuroar
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Science has proven that are at least 100 trillion Gods.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 271 times Debate No: 94565
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Stupidape

Pro

I don't' get all this fuss about no Gods not existing. Science has proven the existence of Gods over and over again. Richard Dawkins does not seem to know what he is talking about. What is he babbling about that God doesn't exist?

As you can see the sun is seen as a God [0] and there are lots and lots of stars, also known as Gods. [1]

I don't get it, why would people doubt the existence of the stars? We couldn't see without them, there wouldn't be any heat.

Definition of God. "4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god." [2]

0. http://www.dictionary.com...
1. http://www.universetoday.com...
2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
joshuroar

Con

This is an interesting perspective. Thanks for the point of view, and please allow me to provide a rebuttal.

Whether or not we agree with Mr. Dawkins, I do think we should be able to at least understand his position, and the position of his debate opponents. I think you may find that this simple explanation is enlightening enough that it resolves the issue immediately without getting too deep into the technical aspects of science and existence and logic. Of course, we can go there if we need to. For now, we'll just talk about denotation of the term 'god' (which I will use interchangeably with 'God' and 'gods' from here on out for simplicity).

The word 'god' has multiple meanings, and they aren't interchangeable. It's what we call a 'polysemic' word. Richard Dawkins is discussing one specific meaning, and you've cited a different meaning that is incompatible.

The definition that you've proposed for 'god' is a perfectly acceptable use of the word, but it's not what is being denoted by Dawkins, or any theist who argues with him. When these people say 'god' - they literally mean one (or more) supreme being(s). They are talking about an actual-in-fact divine being of the universe, which is different than someone or something that is merely worshiped or followed as such.

I hope that resolves the issue and that you can go on to debate Dawkins or theists, as you see fit!
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

Interesting, approach my opponent has taken. Yet, my opponent hasn't disputed whether or not stars exist. Thanks for debating.
joshuroar

Con

Indeed, I think for the purposes of this discussion we can assume that stars do exist. My argument didn't dispute this point because it isn't relevant to understanding whether or not god exists in the sense of the word as it's been cited. Again, atheists and theists alike are using the term 'god' to denote an actual-in-fact divine being. A person or object merely worshipped as a divine being is distinct from an actual-in-fact divine being. In fact, it's the correctness of the belief itself that is at issue in those debates. In your version, there's either a semantic misunderstanding or a logical misstep. We can fix either one.

Do you think that Dawkins and theists are debating over whether some people believe in god, or do you think that believing that something is true makes it true?
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

"Do you think that Dawkins and theists are debating over whether some people believe in god, or do you think that believing that something is true makes it true?"


The latter, its a well known fact that some people believe in God. Therefore, it must be the latter of the two.
joshuroar

Con

I'm happy to explain why that doesn't work. I'll give you an intuitive explanation first, then just use a simple proof by contradiction to prove it.

Believing that something is true does not make it true. Why? Consider the case where your belief is incorrect. We know that it's possible for beliefs to be incorrect, because a belief is a state of mind about the truth of something.

Assume that believing something is true makes it true. Many people believe that Mexico's Independence Day is Cinco De Mayo (May 5). Their actual Independence Day is September 16. If believing in something makes it true, then Mexico's Independence Day is May 5th (by belief), and it's September 16th (by fact). However, these are different days. We've arrived at a contradiction, so the premise must be rejected. Therefore, believing something is true does not make it true.

Here's another fun one. Assume that believing something is true makes it true. Some people believe that the Apollo program was a conspiracy and the moon landings were faked. Therefore, the Apollo program was a conspiracy and the moon landings were faked. However, other people believe that the Apollo program was not a conspiracy and the moon landings were not faked. Therefore, the Apollo program was both a conspiracy and not a conspiracy, and the moon landings were both faked, and not faked. This is a contradiction, so we have to reject the premise. Therefore, believing something is true does not make it true.

I hope that helps!
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Zaephou 6 months ago
Zaephou
The problem with the argument the instigator is presenting is that he is considering objects perceived to have a higher power as factually being a higher power. This is in fact quite false since those objects may just be the objects in the perception of another person. The argument that 'I think it is true therefore it is true' is self-perceived objectivity and is simply the 'appeal to the people' logical fallacy. Just because many people may believe the stars are Gods, does not mean others have to uphold to the same ideology.
Posted by vi_spex 6 months ago
vi_spex
god=information
Posted by canis 6 months ago
canis
No. Statistic proves that there are about 5-6000.000.000 gods.
No votes have been placed for this debate.