The Instigator
dtaylor971
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
ObjectivityIsAMust
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

That Strong Atheism is Unreasonable

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
dtaylor971
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,201 times Debate No: 66090
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (2)

 

dtaylor971

Pro

In this debate, I will be arguing that strong atheism is unreasonable, and con will be arguing that strong atheism is reasonable. The burden of proof will be shared in this debate. I will attempt to affirm that strong atheism is unreasonable, whereas con will negate my resolution, and try to show that strong atheism is reasonable.

================================================================

Strong Atheism: The concept "strong atheism" will be pulled from Dawkin's scale of theistic probability [1]. "Strong atheism" means you are 100% certain there is no God.

Unreasonable: Not according to reason

This debate will
not be about whether atheism/theism is right or not. However, evidence stemming from whether atheism/theism is right may be used.

================================================================

Debate structure:

First round: Acceptance only.
Second round: Arguments.
Third round: Rebuttals.
Fourth round: Closing and further rebuttals.

-No semantics
-No trolling
-No heavy swearing
-No forfeiture
-No personal insults.

By accepting, you accept all of the guidelines and rules above. Best of luck to whomever chooses to accept.

[1] http://www.patheos.com...
ObjectivityIsAMust

Con

Only one of the PRO arguments need to work for the PRO to win.

Lack of Knowledge:
A human being who has never heard of the concept of God can be a Strong Atheist.

God is logically inconsistent:
1) !Determinism:
Because of determinism God is cannot be omnipotent as he is limited by himself questioning the very concept of a God.
Determinism also means that humans be ultimately judge for their actions therefore an earthly test is pointless.
In addition, the presences of an after-life make all human actions on earth meaningless as it is as if one was in a video game.

One cannot believe in a concept that one does not understand:
The continuous changing nature of a human beings mean that at no point during his life is he his true self. Therefore a human is the combination both past and present. A human mind cannot even hope to understand such a concept yet alone believe in it.
God is also to complicated to understand therefore those who claim they believe are merely saying they believe in him without actually believing in him.

-> Belief is a vague concept.

An infinite amount of illogically claim can be made is it unreasonable to deny those to?:
If I claim that a fat guy with 5 fairy wings who rides a goat-horse-mutant grants wishes to midgets who get average grade in the American schools is it unreasonable to say for certain that he does not exist?
Debate Round No. 1
dtaylor971

Pro

This is going to be an interesting debate. First, I will assert the guidelines, and then we will get debating!

==Framework==

In case I wasn't clear enough in the first round, the BoP is shared. This was agreed by con upon his acceptance. This may not be argued after the first arguments are presented, as it would be an unfair BoP flip (for either side.) My opponent has already lost conduct by posting arguments in the first round (since first round was for acceptance only.)

Continuing on, I would like to acknowledge that I did receive a little help from YYW and Mikal. I thank both of them greatly for helping me formulate my ideas. The basis of this debate will rely on reason, not evidence that one side is correct (theism v. atheism) or uncited assertions. The topic is strictly whether or not strong atheism is unreasonable, not whether it is correct or not.

Note some of the sources may be screwed up. I apologize for that. Also note this is a philosophical debate, so sources will be somewhat limited.

"Strong Atheism" was pulled directly from the seven point scale of Richard Dawkins Spectrum of Theistic Probability [1]:

"I know there is no God, with the same conviction that Jung knows there is one."


Without further ado, onto the debate!

===========================================================================================

C1: 100% Proof

The idea of a "strong atheist" is that no God exists, and given strong atheist is 100% sure about that. Given strong atheist believes that there is absolutely zero percent chance that God exists, and is absolutely positive about his/her assertion. These ideals are flawed and unreasonable. This can be shown by simple logic:

P1) There is no strong evidence suggesting God does not exist.
P2) One needs proof to come to a reasonable, certain conclusion.
C) It is unreasonable to come to a certain conclusion about whether or not God exists.

Since strong atheism relies on the idea that there is literally no possible way that God exists, we can find that strong atheism itself is flawed. One can not come to a reasonable, complete conclusion without viable evidence and proof, which does not exist in the case of God. The complete conclusion that is presented by strong atheism is unreasonable.

Now that we have asserted the conclusion, or the main base, of strong atheism is incorrect, we can attack strong atheism itself. Since the whole idea of strong atheism seems to revolve around the saying that there is a 100%, we should attempt to attack that further. But, more so, does a 100% even exist? The following text was taken during a normal religious conversation (from an atheist) [5]:

"There is no 100% anything. Only close to it."


If even some atheists are willing to admit that they do not know, or cannot know, for a fact that God does not exist, we can arrive at the conclusion that strong atheism itself is flawed.

C2: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence


The common strong atheist claim that "there is no evidence of God, so He must not exist" is flawed. As the old saying goes, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." It is highly illogical to claim that you are positive that something does not exist just because there is no evidence. For example:

If there is no evidence for Y, it does not necessarily mean that Y does not exist [3]. In this case, the evidence of absence for Y is not enough to come to a completely, surefire conclusion that Y does not exist. In other words, the existence of Y has not been in any way disproven, so it is not of reason to state that, without any proof, that Y has a zero percent chance of existing.

As of now, we have yet to find any strong evidence supporting or negating the existence of a deity. However, the best one can do under these circumstances is suggest that we have been searching for God and we have not found him, but we can not suggest that there is no God. As David Hume may put it, we cannot have knowledge that the sun will rise in the morning. We cannot rule out any possibilities without proof, no matter what score we assign to them.

If there is absence of evidence for God, it does not mean that He does not exist. At the very most, the absence of evidence suggests that God may not exist, but it alone does not prove that God does not exist. Since this is a vital part of strong atheists' beliefs, we can find that strong atheism is at least somewhat unreasonable. This affirms the pro's resolution.

C3: Physics and Metaphysics

The whole base of strong atheism relies on the assertion that science can prove certain things. While it may be possible to prove certain observable things with science and mathematics, it may be impossible to prove the existence, or non-existence, of an unobservable idea, object, or thing. There's a simple argument for all of this:

"All science can do is say that scientists may have been looking for unicorns for a long time and never found any... Since science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything, one can never accurately claim that science has proven God doesn't exist [2]."

Now, let's venture onto a whole new idea- that God is metaphysical [6]. The argument here is that our idea of God is metaphysical, not physical. We have finite knowledge, so (as my opponent did say in the first round,) it would be highly difficult, if not impossible, to conceive His image as is. So, we have our own concept of God. We are trying to prove the metaphysical concept of God with physics and science, which is unsound.

The fact that strong atheism relies on the fact that there is a 100% is flawed- even more so than already suggested. Physics and science are not on the same epistemological plane as metaphysics are, and thus, one can not prove the other. Since strong atheism relies upon scientific evidence to prove the nonexistence of God, we can see that the idea is unreasonable, as using physics to prove a metaphysical idea is absurd.

==Conclusion==

In conclusion, I have shown that strong atheism is unreasonable through three contentions. My opponent must show that strong atheism is reasonable despite there being no proven evidence. If he can not do that, he loses the argument section. He must also show that physics can prove metaphysics, and that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

The resolution is affirmed.


Sources:

[1] http://shadowtolight.wordpress.com...
[2] http://www.str.org...
[3] http://c2.com...
[4] http://www.iep.utm.edu... (See 2: Organization and Association of Ideas)
[5] http://carm.org...
[6] https://www3.nd.edu...
ObjectivityIsAMust

Con

-> First off, my opponent position is a clear fallacy. He is attempting to prove that nothing can be proven to 100% certainty by attempting to prove something to 100% certainty which is nonsense.

"C1: 100% Proof

P1) There is no strong evidence suggesting God does not exist.
P2) One needs proof to come to a reasonable, certain conclusion.
C) It is unreasonable to come to a certain conclusion about whether or not God exists."

-> This is false, he is basing his ideas on empiricism which by its very nature is uncertain. One can not prove anything for 100% using proof based on experimentation since it is dependant on the physical word which is dependant on the senses.

-> However, one can proof certainty with the rationalism model with relies on reason and logical fallacies.

-> If a proposition contradicts itself it cannot exist by any mean. God is by all definition an omnipotent being (or else he would merely be a more advance race making him an alien). He therefore contradict himself since God cannot be all powerful since he is limited by himself
God is also by all definition infinite which once again is a logical fallacy since their has to be a process by which he can exist.

-> I also refer back to my previous arguments about lack of knowledge and that one cannot believe in concept that one does not understand.

"One can not come to a reasonable, complete conclusion without viable evidence and proof, which does not exist in the case of God. The complete conclusion that is presented by strong atheism is unreasonable."

-> This is a repeat of the empiricist arguments which have been previously proven false by rationalist arguments.
This only support the concept that rationalism can refute proposition to 100% certainty.

Summary
My opponent has merely ignored my arguments and argued the position that empiricism cannot disprove God, which is a self-evident claim since God is metaphysical. It is also completely irrelevant since I have made no arguments supporting empiricism so he is arguing with no one and disproving no one.

He merely repeats his arguments redundantly and siting unrelated source.

Relating to the argument of conducted (this is a distracting argument so I
will address it only at the end) :

It is a popular misconception to believe that any stipulation placed on a contract is valid. If I sign a sheet of paper giving all my possession to an unknown person that does not give him the right to seize my property.

In order for a stipulation to be valid it must serve a purpose. In this debate this stipulation does not serve a purpose since the Con offered to shoulder the burden of Proof making the Pros first arguments completely pointless and merely self-detrimental. Actually, the Con was attempting to save the Pro by preventing him from making unnecessary and could of created logical fallacies (which the Pro did anyways). In addition, by starting the debate the Con was allowing the Pro more time to scrutinize and find the false in the arguments presented which ultimately would of improved the Pro chances of winning, unfortunately the Pro did not do this and merely made unrelated arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
dtaylor971

Pro

==Framework==

The con starts out his round two by attacking my arguments, which breaks the rules once again. Only arguments were allowed in the second round (as stated in first round.) The con made no arguments of his own, and thus can not win the debate, for he has not fulfilled his burden of proof.His arguments in the first round were nullified due to the breaking of the rules. I was not allowed to respond to his arguments in the second round, since it was for arguments (by the pro and con) only.

Second, whoever meets their BoP better wins the debate. I am not proving this to a certainty, just as well as I can. I am not attempting to prove anything, but rather meet my burden of proof as well as I can. My opponent obviously did not read my round 1 structure or my round two framework, which both clearly stated about the BoP and what my opponent needed to do to win the debate.

Furthermore, I urge the voters to dock my opponent on the sources category also- all of his claims (main arguments in R1) are unsupported by sources. I also tell the voters to vote against my opponent on conduct, for he has broken the rules twice now and is obviously ignoring my frameworks. His spelling and grammar makes his arguments quite tough to understand, too. I advise the voters to take a look at that, too.
===========================================================================================

Rc1: Proof and Paradoxes

There is no evidence to suggest my logic is unsound. My opponent is trying to prove there is a 100% (since the basis of strong atheism relies on it,) so by arguing there is no 100%, he practically refutes himself. Furthermore, my opponent only refutes the basis of my logic, but not the logic itself. He does nothing to show that one can reach a reasonable conclusion without very strong evidence or proof.

I also request for my opponent to explain exactly how my logic is based on empiricism. My point still stands: one can not know for an absolute fact that something does exist or doesn't exist without proof.
I ask my opponent to show exactly how one can prove, for an absolute fact, that something does exist or doesn't exist without any proof.

My opponent also goes on to say that God contradicts Himself. He claims that since God is all-knowing (omnipotent), he is limited by himself. My opponent does not show how God is limited by Himself, leaving an empty argument and giving me nothing to work with. I ask my opponent, again, to explain how God contradicts himself. However, I can attempt to refute what I believe my opponent is trying to say.

God is omnipotent within the laws of logic and His nature [1]. Richard Swinburne suggests that God can only act in a logical way, that is in His nature. He can not support logical absurdities. Since the "omnipotence" has been taken from the Bible, we can return to the Bible for answers. Hebrew 6:18 [2]:

"That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie..."

The Bible supports the assertion that God can only do things within His nature, which is just a different version of omnipotence. He can not say or do anything contrary to his very nature, like a human can not perform actions outside of their nature. This is also supported by Richard Swinburne:

"S is omnipotent at time t =df S is able at t to bring about any state of affairs p such that it is consistent with the facts about what happened before t that, after t, S should bring about p [3]."

===========================================================================================

Rc2: Starting Arguments and Summary


This will be dedicated to refuting my opponent's first round arguments. The determinism argument was already refuted above (or the omnipotence argument.) As for the concept of God, that was crossed out by an argument I made in the second round (Physics and Metaphysics.) Since we have finite knowledge, we can only perceive Him in a metaphysical way. We can believe in the metaphysical God, which is still the same God.

Furthermore, my opponent provides no evidence that one can not understand God. To believe in God usually means just to think He exists, regardless of whether one understands Him or not. My opponent continues to claim my arguments are empiricist (well, without any evidence) and neglects to refute the actual information within it. My opponent also neglects to show that there is a 100% certainty in whether God exists- which is what he needs to do to win the debate.

The con then tries to justify why he posted arguments in the first round, and then tries to switch the BoP directly to me. If he wanted to switch the BoP, he must have done it in the first round. Switching the BoP after an opponent has made his argument is not good conduct at all. Furthermore, it was clearly stated in the first and second round that BoP was shared. This was accepted by the con upon acceptance of this debate.

He then claims my arguments are irrelevant to the debate, when they are not. I explained how each one supported my BoP, and he simply ignores this. I ignored his arguments since the second round was for arguments only. I addressed his arguments earlier in this round.

==Summary==

In conclusion, my opponent did not even address my C2 and C3, but only attacked my C1. He also conceded part of my C3 by admitting himself that the idea of God is metaphysical. My second and third contentions are dropped as of now, and my first contention has not been thoroughly refuted (if refuted at all.) My opponent also neglects to show how my arguments are wrong, but merely claims that since I base them on empiricism, they are incorrect (without explaining himself.)

My opponent also is trying to switch the BoP. It is much too late in the debate to do that, as it would be highly unfair to me since my arguments were already presented (and my opponent gave no signal that he wanted to change the BoP.) Also-I can't stress this enough- all guidelines (including the shared BoP) were accepted when con accepted this debate. He has already broken the structure of the debate (conduct,) not shared any links or evidence (sources,) and has not had fluent S&G (grammar.)

I thank my opponent for the debate insofar. I look forward to his response.

Sources:

[2] http://www.icr.org...

[3] Swinburne, Richard. 1973. Omnipotence. American Philosophical Quarterly 10: 231-237.

ObjectivityIsAMust

Con

My opponent arguments in C1, C2 and C3 are based on the empiricist model and since no one is arguing that one can physically prove God, all three of his arguments are completely pointless.

Inaccurate conclusion: "Since strong atheism relies upon scientific evidence to prove the nonexistence of God"

The only way one can prove a certainty is by refuting a claim based on its logical inconsistencies thereby showing that the model is impossible ( I have done this in the previous round).

The sources are not proper authorities of this subject and are supporting pointless arguments: "1] http://shadowtolight.wordpress.com......
[2] http://www.str.org......
[3] http://c2.com......
[4] http://www.iep.utm.edu...... (See 2: Organization and Association of Ideas)
[5] http://carm.org......
[6] https://www3.nd.edu...;

Therefore they should be discarded as it is very easy to post unrelated links.

In addition, my opponent has not addressed the fallacy of his position : " He is attempting to prove that nothing can be proven to 100% certainty by attempting to prove something to 100% certainty which is nonsense".

This contradicts his claim as if nothing is certain than one cannot conclude with certainty that atheist is unreasonable.
In addition, my opponent is attempting to use rationalism to support his point but asking that the opposite side use empiricism.

"The con starts out his round two by attacking my arguments, which breaks the rules once again. Only arguments were allowed in the second round (as stated in first round.) "

-> This is a clear cop-out by my opponent to avoid addressing the main issues of this debate.

"Furthermore, I urge the voters to dock my opponent on the sources category also- all of his claims (main arguments in R1) are unsupported by sources."

-> This once again is based on the empiricist model. The purpose of this model is to create a foundation that one can progressively build on with physical evidence in order to put all scientist on the right path. This is why it is the predominate method in academia but it is not the only model. Rationalism or arguments made by reason alone can also prove a position by refuting another. Furthermore, one does not need an authority to validate his idea, instead one uses them to add credibility to them.

Here, he is purposefully distorting my argument: "My opponent is trying to prove there is a 100% (since the basis of strong atheism relies on it,) so by arguing there is no 100%"

I stated that empiricism cannot prove something to 100%. At no point, however, did I state that 100% certain was not possible. Actually, I stated that rationalism can refute an argument to 100%. thus creating some form of certainty.
This is why academics use the word support instead of prove but will still use the word refute in an article.

"He does nothing to show that one can reach a reasonable conclusion without very strong evidence or proof. "

-> Redundantly, repeats his arguments against empiricism which is circumventing the issue.

"one can not know for an absolute fact that something does exist or doesn't exist without proof. "

-> Proof is the corner stone of empiricism, they attempt to validate their position. Rationalism, by contrast, uses logical inconsistencies to invalidate positions. You cannot prove something to 100% certainty but you can refute it to 100% certainty.

"My opponent does not show how God is limited by Himself"

To be omnipotent one must be all powerful (i.e. ability to do anything),

- If God were to attempt to make something so heavy that he could not lift it, whether he succeeds of fails he would still end up contradicting his omnipotence.

The point is that God is limited by the traits that God posses. This ranges from his thoughts to his composition. Not matter what he is made of it has the limits based on itself. Because of this, no so called God could be called a God but merely a more advance being or race. Ultimately, humans can achieve anything that they can dream up (if it is of rational proportional) since their imagination is based on the physical world and the physical world is merely matter in different orders.

Therefore, only a being that can transcend the limits of itself (matter or composition) can be call a God and such a being is logically inconsistent.

"God can only act in a logical way"

-> Then he is not a God but merely a more evolved race (one that has mastered the physical world)

"The Bible supports the assertion that..."

-> Since we are not discussing the traditional God (which would be against your interest), the Bible is not a reliable source. In addition, again if one cannot transcended the physical limits one is not a God.

In accurate statement: "The determinism argument was already refuted."

"My opponent continues to claim my arguments are empiricist (well, without any evidence)"

-> How would one refute empiricism with empiricism? His argument is nonsense.

"In conclusion, my opponent did not even address my C2 and C3, but only attacked my C1."

-> I refuted all 3 of them simultaneously.

Summary

My opponent has merely repeated irrelevant arguments and attempted to fine excuses as to why he deserves free point in this debate. He is to concern with winning that he defeats the very purpose of this debate with circular reasoning. In addition, he uses sources to support pointless argument in order to earn point in the category of reliable source.

My opponent is doing everything in his power to win this debate expect refuting my points.
Debate Round No. 3
dtaylor971

Pro

I thank the opposition for his speedy response.

==Framework==

The con states that no one is truing to prove there is a 100%- even though this is pretty much the underlying idea of this debate. I refer him back to the first round, when it was stated strong atheism meant that someone is 100% certain that there is no God. This definition (along with unreasonable) was accepted upon the acceptance of this debate.

Furthermore, my C2 and C3 arguments remain untouched. My opponent states he refuted them all at the same time, though he says nothing about absence of evidence or metaphysics. Thus, there two points remain dropped by my opponent. My first contention is touched only by the assertion that they are based on empiricism, which isn't technically a rebuttal (refuted later in the round.)

Third, the con ignores the fact that he has repeatedly broken conduct. I tell this not because I would like a free point, but rather to show my opponent has violated the rules and conduct of the debate. I would like to provide the voters with all the tools necessary to reach the right conclusion. Breaking the debate format also given an unfair edge to one of the debaters, as posting in the first round gives con three rounds to refute, but gives me only two.

And, last, he states all my sources are irrelevant. This is false, as all of my sources correlate with what I am saying. My opponent takes the immature path and states a lot of unrelated sources- which pretty much contradicts himself. He has no right to say my sources are pointless, as he has not posted any sources correlating to his argument either.

==Empiricism==

Since empiricism seems to be a hot topic in this debate, allow me to address it first. My opponent is arguing on the basis that empiricism is completely wrong, even though there is a debate about whether empiricism is better than rationalism. For example, how could you know what the color blue looks like if you were born blind? You can't. My opponent has failed to show why empiricism is so bad here.

Con has also failed to show how my ideas were based on empiricism, but continues to claim that they are. Saying one's arguments are based off of empiricism is not a proper rebuttal. There's a whole debate about whether empiricism or rationalism is correct, so he can not formulate his empiricism "arguments" on the assumption that Empiricism is incorrect.

Continuing on, Empiricism has been used by many scholars in the argument of God, such as Berkeley, Hume, and Locke. Following is a thought from Berkeley:

"According to this view, there is nothing which our understanding cannot grasp, and our perceptions can be regarded as a kind of divine language by which God speaks to us; for God is the cause of our perceptions [1]."

=================================================================

==Certainty and Paradoxes==

My opponent starts off by saying that I have not refuted the error of my position. I am trying to prove (as best I can) that there is no 100%, and thus God's existence is unreasonable. I do not refute myself, as I never said I was trying to prove my argument to 100%, just to the fullest extent possible. He then says I'm using rationalism in my arguments, but earlier, he says I was using empiricism. If I'm using both to support my point, then that just further supports my BoP.

Furthermore, my opponent restates his omnipotent argument, yet it was refuted by me in the third round. I stated God can do things within his nature, which, truthfully, is just another definition of omnipotent. Theissen gave a better example of God's omnipotence:

“God is all-powerful and able to do whatever he wills. Since his will is limited by his nature, God can do everything that is in harmony with his perfections [2].”

This point has been disproven twice now. Also, this is basically my opponent trying to disprove God, which isn't completely relevant to this debate. Instead of trying to prove there is no 100%, my opponent simply just tries to disprove God. He also states the Bible is not a good source. There are two errors with this statement:

1) God was defined in the second round (first definition stated) as "the God from the Bible."

2) The assertion that God is omnipotent was taken from the Bible. By saying the Bible is not a reliable source, he refutes his omnipotence argument.


=================================================================

==Further "proof" arguments==

My opponent states you can not prove something, but you can disprove something. However, God has not been disproven or proven yet. Thus, it is illogical that one would be completely certain of God's existence. My opponent is using rationalism to attempt to show (for a 100%) that God does not exist. He even concedes that one can not prove something to a 100% certainty... meaning one can not prove God does not exist to a 100% certainty.

He does, however, state that something can be refuted to a 100% certainty. The point here is that God has not been proven or disproven to a 100% certainty, so it is unreasonable to be absolutely certain that God does not exist. This point remains untouched by my opponent.

To close, there is no proof, or even solid evidence, that God does not exist. Whatever way you look at it, completely believing that God does not exist is illogical.

=================================================================

==CONCLUSION==

In conclusion, my opponent has not even come close to reaching his BoP. All he has done is claim that I used empiricist arguments, and thus, they are illogical to this debate. He has not shown there is a 100% (using any strategy,) which he had to do to show that one can be justified in being certain that God does not exist.

Even if he has shown there is a 100% (which he has not,) then one would need proof to come to a certain conclusion. As it was shown, there is no proof that God does not exist. Thus, we find that it is unreasonable to conclude (for a fact) that God does not exist. And since it has also been demonstrated that physics can not prove metaphysics (basis of God,) then the only way to know something for a fact regarding God's existence (or nonexistence) is by observation- or empiricism.

Through these arguments, I have met my BoP better than the con. In fact, the con still neglects to even refute my second contention and third contention, though they are different ideas (one is based on metaphysics and physics, the other on absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.) All of my opponent's first round arguments remain refuted. Also, the possibility of a fat guy who grants wishes to midgets is not even in the same area code as the possibility of God existing, so it isn't logical to put the two in the exact same spot.

Also, you can't disprove this given fat guy. He may exist on a different planet, he may exist though no one has ever witnessed him, etc. I can be 99.9% certain this guy doesn't exist, but I can't disprove it, and neither can you. Below are reasons why I won each category of the voting section:

Conduct: My opponent has broken the structure of the debate multiple times, which should result in a loss of conduct.


Spelling and Grammar: My opponent's second round arguments have some obvious errors, such as some misspellings and grammar issues. I'm not going to get nitpicky, but I urge the voters to look at the con's second round arguments.

Arguments: Stated above. Opponent has not even come close to his BoP in showing that it is reasonable to believe for a certainty that something, let alone God, exists. He has also dropped my second and third contentions, and my first one remains barely touched.

Sources: I cite various sources, all somewhat related to what I am saying. My opponent cites zero sources whatsoever related to his arguments.

I thank my opponent for a great debate, and I return the table to him for the last say in this debate.

Sources:

[1] http://mind.ucsd.edu...
[2] Thiessen, Henry, Lectures in Systematic Theology. (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company), p. 82.
ObjectivityIsAMust

Con

Inaccurate statement: "The con states that no one is truing to prove there is a 100%- even though this is pretty much the underlying idea of this debate."

No were do I say this, instead I stated that no one is trying to physically prove, with empirical evidences, that God does not exist. One again, true certainty can only be achieved by refuting something through rationalist arguments (by spotting logical inconsistencies in propositions).

"Furthermore, my C2 and C3 arguments remain untouched. My opponent states he refuted them all at the same time, though he says nothing about absence of evidence or metaphysics."

C2 and C3 arguments are based on empiricism... If empiricism is not up for debate then they are pointless. What does absence of metaphysic even mean... it a nonsensical statement. Metaphysics is philosophy their therefore cannot be an absence of it.

"Third, the con ignores the fact that he has repeatedly broken conduct. I tell this not because I would like a free point, but rather to show my opponent has violated the rules and conduct of the debate"

Yet another distracting argument that does not support my opponent case. Why are we even debating if he will not address the issue?

"And, last, he states all my sources are irrelevant. This is false, as all of my sources correlate with what I am saying. My opponent takes the immature path and states a lot of unrelated sources- which pretty much contradicts himself. He has no right to say my sources are pointless, as he has not posted any sources correlating to his argument either."

You sources are based yet again on empiricism which is not up for debate and therefore irrelevant.

"Con has also failed to show how my ideas were based on empiricism, but continues to claim that they are"

I have repeatedly shown that they are. Empiricist argument are ones that are based on the physical world or experiments. If God is immaterial, how could any such argument logically validate or invalidate him. The only way why to invalidate God is to challenge the very concept of a God and the implication that they have. If the concept of God is not logically consistent than he cannot exist under any circumstances.

"There's a whole debate about whether empiricism or rationalism is correct,"

No, both are correct they are merely just different approaches.

His quote: "According to this view, there is nothing which our understanding cannot grasp, and our perceptions can be regarded as a kind of divine language by which God speaks to us; for God is the cause of our perceptions [1]."

This supports the concept that God has to be logically consistent and since that has be refuted this argument is invalid.

"I do not refute myself, as I never said I was trying to prove my argument to 100%, just to the fullest extent possible."

Your entire argument is hinges on the point that atheist is unreasonable because it cannot be prove at 100% certain yet you admit yourself that your position is cannot be proven at 100% certainty either making your position, by this standard, unreasonable. It is therefore unreasonable to state that pure atheist is unreasonable.

"I stated God can do things within his nature, which, truthfully, is just another definition of omnipotent."

This is an invalid definition of omnipotency since everything within their nature and therefore, by this standard everything, would be omnipotent. In addition, being limited by ones nature is the complete opposite of omnipotency.

"God is all-powerful and able to do whatever he wills. Since his will is limited by his nature, God can do everything that is in harmony with his perfections [2]."

This argument claims that God can do what ever he wills which has been refuted since cannot create something that he cannot surpass. The first premise is wrong making the whole statement invalid.

"This point has been disproven twice now."

Here, my opponent confirms his support for rationalist arguments and in fact they are the only one he uses to defend his position.

"God was defined in the second round (first definition stated) as "the God from the Bible.""

-> I did not use the Bible because it would give me unfair advantage. If my opponent claims that the God he is defending is a biblical God than God's contradictions much larger than the few that I named.

"The assertion that God is omnipotent was taken from the Bible. By saying the Bible is not a reliable source, he refutes his omnipotence argument."

No, the fundamental concept of a God is one that can surpass physical limitations. If a being is unable to do so they he is simply a more advance race.

Inaccurate: "However, God has not been disproven or proven yet."

I have refuted the logic of his concept and therefore proven that it is impossible for him to exist.

This is a straight-out lie: "He even concedes that one can not prove something to a 100% certainty... meaning one can not prove God does not exist to a 100% certainty."

"He does, however, state that something can be refuted to a 100% certainty. The point here is that God has not been proven or disproven to a 100% certainty, so it is unreasonable to be absolutely certain that God does not exist. This point remains untouched by my opponent."

My opponent has repeatedly mention conduct but throughout this debate he has merely repeated himself and misrepresented his opponent that to me this seem like much more serious violation of conduct.

Summary

In this round my opponent merely repeated the arguments he used in the previous round while ignoring the arguments I made. He is using circular reasoning to distract from the issue in order to dodge answering the contradictions of the concept of God.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
RFD (Pt. 1)

".Let's start with conduct.

I don't buy Con's argument regarding the validity of this particular contract, especially since he accepted the debate and was fully capable of understanding the debate as it stood. Con fundamentally failed to adhere to the rules of this debate, posting an argument in the first round (and yes, that isn't fair, especially when Pro adhered to that rule) and posting rebuttals in R2. Whatever Con might perceive as conduct violations on his opponent's part, I don't see. So the conduct point goes to Pro.

Sources also go to Pro. No matter what Con might think about Pro's arguments, they are the sole points supported by actual sources. Con's arguments are entirely based in assertion, using scant little explanation and absolutely no evidence (and yes, evidence exists to support rationalist viewpoints " at least some basic support would have helped).

I am VERY tempted to give Pro S&G. I had to read through some of Con's arguments multiple times due to various mistakes. Admittedly, Pro's arguments were not pitch perfect in their execution either, and that's really what tips it for me. Con's arguments may be difficult to read, but they never really reach the point of indecipherable that I need to allocate this point, and since Pro's arguments had their own faults, I simply let this be.

Arguments...

I really shouldn't be thinking this hard about this category in the end, guys. I'm generally befuddled by how this debate actually played out after the Pro's R2, which seemed like such a great setup. The problem falls into two pieces, each of which gives me reasons to vote for a different side.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 2)

The first of these is this whole empiricism versus rationalism argument. Pro tells me that god cannot be disproved using any real world evidence and therefore must not be 100% impossible. Con tells me that he can disprove the existence of the biblical god rationally, utilizing a basic logic problem (can god make a boulder so heavy he cannot lift it). Both sides hold their ground, both sides don't move, and I'm left throwing up my hands, especially as each side melds Pro's arguments back and forth from empiricism to rationalism. I can't figure out what each of you wants them to be, but they are empirical arguments.

If I'm evaluating this debate in the way that the resolution seems to imply (that strong atheism is completely and utterly unreasonable), then I'm voting Con. Why? Because I don't need to buy anything on the empirical side to see a rational problem with god's existence, and hence to say that god is 100% nonexistent. Despite the fact that Con drags with his argument " essentially only providing the full explanation way out in R3 " I do actually see it take form, and Pro's response just doesn't cut it for me. I would very easily have bought an argument that god need not exist within the confines of human logic, but I don't see that argument anywhere. Instead, I see this "within His nature" argument, which never gets fully explained. Admittedly, neither does Con's, but he gets further with it and makes more hay over it.

The second of these is... *sigh*... the burdens debate. I actually think the burdens as Pro set them up were way off base. I would have bought an argument that BoP is anything but shared, and that Pro has the central burden of showing that every single argument made by strong atheists is incomplete. If that had happened, I would be giving arguments to Con this very second.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 3)

...But then I get this at the top of R2:

"Only one of the PRO arguments need to work for the PRO to win."

O_o

It was Con telling Pro that he shouldered almost the entire BoP! I'm not sure Con meant it that way, but that's what it looks like, and he never corrects himself. More shocking, though, was that Pro actually challenged this! If Pro had merely accepted this BoP analysis, I'd be signing the ballot for him now.

But both sides end up making me think. Essentially, Con is rooting for me to take the reins here and insert what I think is the BoP into this debate, and Pro is rooting for me to either accept his shared BoP analysis or accept the one Con presented that he was inexplicably against from R1.

Rather than giving them the best outcomes, I take the middle road and accept that it's shared. That makes me think again, and basically at this point, I'm weighing Pro's analysis on why Con can never prove empirically that god doesn't exist against Con's analysis on why rationally god must not exist. I don't particularly like going either way, but I end up leaning Pro, mainly because all of his contentions have, essentially, the same response: it's all empirical. Yes, they are, and they're balanced against Con's hastily explained, ill-thought out, and at least partially responded to arguments for rationalism. If I'm balancing the empirical versus the rational solely on the basis of what's been said here, I end up voting Pro.
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
FIRST ROUND WAS FOR ACCEPTANCE ONLY. SECOND ROUND WAS FOR ARGUMENTS. THAT IS WHY I DIDN'T RESPOND TO YOUR ARGUMENTS. nac
Posted by ObjectivityIsAMust 2 years ago
ObjectivityIsAMust
Many debaters on this site are way too reliant on the structure of their debate (with their bold titles and subtitles) which shift their focus off the substance of their arguments. They become so indulged in their own thesis that they fail to account for the other side's arguments. They seem to believe that if one looks professional one will win.

But no matter how pretty one makes a fallacy, it still remains a fallacy.
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
That "dinosaur" bears pretty much no resemblance to God. Plus, you can not prove for an absolute fact that it does not exist.
Posted by Pandamonious97 2 years ago
Pandamonious97
It seems to me that strong atheism is only as unreasonable as it is unreasonable to disbelieve the existence of an invisible ethereal dinosaur with laser beam eyes is constantly watching me from afar. No one person can tell me that either doesn't exist with absolute certainty, nor can I tell them that they do exist with absolute certainty. Telling someone that this non-belief is unreasonable is, in itself, unreasonable. The same goes for any kind of unfalsifiable hypothesis, hence the name.
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
Strong atheism is you are 100% sure that there is no God, weak atheism is that you don't think God exists, but you don't know for sure (this can also be referred to as agnostic-atheism.)
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
What's the difference between strong atheism and weak atheism?
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
Oh, and NO SEMANTICS.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
dtaylor971ObjectivityIsAMustTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
dtaylor971ObjectivityIsAMustTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: None of Con's arguments showed that it is reasonable to believe with 100% certainty that there is no God. I don't think that is the correct definition of "strong atheism", but nonetheless, it was stated quite explicitly in Round 1, so Con had to stick with it. Con's only viable attack on Pro's arguments is that they are based in empiricism, which is not necessarily the only way to obtain knowledge; this is true, but he never shows that the alternative (rationalism) affirms his position any more than it affirms Pro's, and thus his rebuttal holds no weight. Arguments to Pro. Conduct also to Pro because of Con's disregard for the round structure; as a general piece of advice, I would advise Con to always peruse the terms set out in Round 1 before accepting a debate.