The Instigator
rougeagent21
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
FemaleGamer
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

The Agnostic belief is not logical

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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/11/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,785 times Debate No: 8596
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (39)
Votes (7)

 

rougeagent21

Pro

Although I am usually for it, I do not want to argue semantics in this debate. I want to debate the belief behind the agnostic system. I am vouching that the agnostic belief is either not completely thought out, or that it ignores reality.

I define an agnostic as one who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

God- A supernatural being

I will save my main arguments for later rounds, but will leave my opponent with the main point contending agnostic views.

==Contention 1==

Only a God could have made the universe

Agnostics are not sure about the existence of God. I propose that this belief is not completely thought out. Why? Because only God could have created the universe in which we live. I also propose that agnostic beliefs ignore reality. Why? Since we exist, there must be a God. The agnostic belief that there might not be a God ignores the reality that we are here. Because we are here, there must be a God. Good luck to my opponent, and I hope we have a good debate.
FemaleGamer

Con

Hello, as I accepted I realized that I am leaving in the next few days to go to a camp, so I will only be able to post 2 arguments, that includes this one. Sorry , I go brain-dead sometimes.

[Only a God could have made the universe]

What? No,no,no,no,no. If there is a mold of clay clumped neatly onto a twig, I know, using reason, it simply must have been created. This is due to the fact that I have seen people make it and probablt made one myself. However, this is irrelivant to the universe purely because no one has made one, and because no one has seen anyone else make one.

[Since we exist, there must be a God.]

Is this even an argument? This is a statement based off of opinion. Why must their be a God? Science cannot prove any God's existance. Therefore agnosticism is very reasonable.

[Because we are here, there must be a God.]

Has it ever occured to you that all religion has done is drive us into wars and (literally) fly us into buildings? If this is a reason we need a God then I must be an idiot.
Debate Round No. 1
rougeagent21

Pro

The time indecent is unfortunate. In case you didn't know, you can not post the first round of accepting a debate and it will not count against you. Heads up for next time ;)

My logic for accusing the agnostic belief is that there must be a God. My opponent challenges this:

"What? No,no,no,no,no. If there is a mold of clay clumped neatly onto a twig, I know, using reason, it simply must have been created. This is due to the fact that I have seen people make it and probablt made one myself. However, this is irrelivant to the universe purely because no one has made one, and because no one has seen anyone else make one."

My opponent assumes here that because we cannot see that the universe was created, we have no proof that it was. This is outright false. We cannot see gravity, but we know that it is there. We cannot see Creation, but we can see the effects it had. This can be seen through the universe we live in. Can we know that there is a Creator?

Actually, you can use reason to know that it was created. This will be shown throughout the debate. My opponent claims that since no one has seen a universe created, there hasn't been a created universe. This can easily be reversed on my opponent, that you were not there to prove that it was not created. But I will not resort to this cowardly method of proof, as there are much stronger proofs. With my opponent's attack de-bunked, I proceed to my argument.

The question of our existence has always been a huge one in the mind of man. Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen." Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light." The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter. There have been multiple explanations. A common one is the Big Bang Theory. This basically states that the universe sprang from a singularity that contains all matter. There are many variations of this, but this is widely accepted. No matter which version you look at, it states that the universe sprang from something. There is one main problem with this. We know that our universe is governed by certain laws. The main idea behind Newton's first law of thermodynamics is that, you guessed it, matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Going back to the Big Bang, we must ask ourselves, "where did that singularity come from?"

Scientists claim to know how the universe was made. (Or, for the sake of political correctness, *came into being*) They come so close, but admit to not knowing what happened at the VERY beginning. Even though I personally do not believe that the Big Bang actually happened, I cannot prove that it did not. I CAN prove that if it did happen, a God Must have created the singularity. We know that matter and energy cannot be created, so a supernatural God is NECESSARY to cause matter and energy to come into existence. Therefore, since we exist, there must be a God, since only a God could have created us and the universe. Affirmed.

==SOURCES==

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.everystudent.com...
FemaleGamer

Con

-We cannot see Creation, but we can see the effects it had. -

So we do not see the creation as a whole, yet we see the effects? We need to know creation occured in order to know that is what caused the effects.

-It had a start...what caused that? -
I have no idea. Honestly, I do not. That is ,by your definition, an agnostic point of view. That is very reasonable indeed, because you have no proof of a creator. Your argument is saying " A creation oh-so-obviously needs a creator." But who? Who you may ask? Nobody knows. No facts, no evidence. That is why agnosticism is very reasonable indeed. Where is this creator?

-Even though I personally do not believe that the Big Bang actually happened, I cannot prove that it did not.-
Exactly. This is what agnostics feel about Gods. They do not think they exist, but they can never know for sure.

-We know that matter and energy cannot be created, so a supernatural God is NECESSARY to cause matter and energy to come into existence.-

So energy and matter cannot be created, yet they can come into existance? Wouldn't you define creation as coming into existance? Okay, maybe not. Lets turn to the dictionary for some nuetral definitions.

Create:1: to bring into existence
[http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

Ohh, I see. Thank you, dictionary!

Have a nice evening and see you in 12 days, everyone!
Debate Round No. 2
rougeagent21

Pro

Well, I have waited the longest time possible to post so my opponent can hopefully make a final argument. Here goes.

My opponent hardly touches the extents of my arguments. While I will rebut what she has said, please do not forget all of the untouched information that I provided in the previous round.

All of what my opponent has said is essentially that we cannot know there is a God just because we are created, and the definition of "create." She seems to just restate her position, rather than create arguments. I have already shown why there must be a creator. Read this ignored piece of information from the previous round:

"There have been multiple explanations. A common one is the Big Bang Theory. This basically states that the universe sprang from a singularity that contains all matter. There are many variations of this, but this is widely accepted. No matter which version you look at, it states that the universe sprang from something. There is one main problem with this. We know that our universe is governed by certain laws. The main idea behind Newton's first law of thermodynamics is that, you guessed it, matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Going back to the Big Bang, we must ask ourselves, "where did that singularity come from?"

Scientists claim to know how the universe was made. (Or, for the sake of political correctness, *came into being*) They come so close, but admit to not knowing what happened at the VERY beginning. Even though I personally do not believe that the Big Bang actually happened, I cannot prove that it did not. I CAN prove that if it did happen, a God Must have created the singularity. We know that matter and energy cannot be created, so a supernatural God is NECESSARY to cause matter and energy to come into existence. Therefore, since we exist, there must be a God, since only a God could have created us and the universe. Affirmed."

My opponent also goes to the trouble of giving the definition of "create." What she does not realize is that she has just affirmed the resolution. As has been stated, the universe is governed by certain laws. We know that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Since we are here, we had to have been created. Since we cannot have been created through natural, law-obeying means, we must have been created. ONLY a supernatural God could have created the universe, since conventional methods are impossible given the governing laws of nature.

So now to answer your question, "So energy and matter cannot be created, yet they can come into existance (existence?)?" Well I am sure that you know that you exist. You are here on this Earth. You must have been been brought into existence. You know the governing laws of nature. Since matter cannot be created nor destroyed, ONLY a supernatural being, or God, could have created the universe, and could have created you. The resolution remains affirmed.
FemaleGamer

Con

FemaleGamer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Hmm. If the other voters would post RFDs, that would be great.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
Correction: "Pro didn't understand that he needed to prove that not knowing what to believe could not be a valid belief."
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
Weird debate.
(1) Con. I agreed with Con before the debate clearly.
(2) Con. I still agree with Con afterward.
(3) Pro. Con forfeited a round.
(4) Pro. For better spelling/grammar.
(5) Con. Pro was arguing something could be against a belief system that posits something may or may not be. Con said "Okay. It could be. Agnosticism agrees with you." Pro didn't understand that he needed to prove that not knowing what to believe could be a valid belief.
(6) Pro. 2 v. 1. Barely more.
Posted by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
"Yah, I should have specified, there are 2 wars that are religious, Iraq and 100 years war. Sorry for being unclear."

100 years war? Iraq? Are you out of your mind? What does religion have to do with any of these?
Posted by Kefka 7 years ago
Kefka
"How is the building part not entirely true? Explanation nao plz."
Because religion had nothing at all to do with it.
1. If you actually think it was backed by 'terrorists' on a mission to 'kill the infidels', then you're seriously mistaken. It was caused by America's love of imperialism and unwavering presence everywhere in the world, 'policing the world' if you prefer that term. Ron Paul has explained it pretty well.
2. If you have done extensive research into '9/11 conspiracy theories' (In quotes, because negative connotations usually follow that phrase, unfortunately), you would understand the POSSIBILITY that it didn't go down the way it is commonly said to have. There are large heaps of proof backing up theories that deviate from the status quo perception. Should go do some research, but I think I know the response I"m going to get from this message ;D.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
It's a shame. This could have been a good debate but Con isn't really doing a very good job giving counterarguments and I think we can expect a final round forfeit.

Opening round for PRO was good, set up the parameters and provoked *juuust* enough, while saving plenty for the latter rounds. CON's first counter was too weak even to dispel the opening post. I'll see how this turns out though.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Gamer

I just posted *literally* 32 seconds after you logged off. Sorry about that.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
"I am sorry you have so little faith in me maikuru."

I was just teasing, rogue =D
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
"No, it's true alright, but the word 'literally"'was excessive. It is probably one of the most misused words I can think of, and I blame Will Ferrell."

Lol agreed.
Posted by leet4A1 7 years ago
leet4A1
"How is the building part not entirely true? Explanation nao plz."

No, it's true alright, but the word "literally" was excessive. It is probably one of the most misused words I can think of, and I blame Will Ferrell.

The reason it was excessive, and therefore misused, in your sentence is because there is no existing figurative term along the lines of "flew into buildings". If every time something went bad, it was figuratively said to have "flown into a building", then your use of the word would have been justified. You could then say that religion has "literally flown us into a building", because the word "literally" is to show that religion has not only gone bad (the figurative meaning), but also that relgion has actually caused men to fly into buildings (the 9/11, literal meaning).

Your misuse was very slight, because what you were describing WAS literal. What really annoys me is when people say stuff like "I literally died when I saw that" or "When that chick dumped me, it literally broke my heart."

And that's what grinds my gears, I'm Peter Griffin.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
rougeagent21FemaleGamerTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
rougeagent21FemaleGamerTied
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 TFranklin62 7 years ago
TFranklin62
rougeagent21FemaleGamerTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by sershawn44 7 years ago
sershawn44
rougeagent21FemaleGamerTied
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 FemaleGamer 7 years ago
FemaleGamer
rougeagent21FemaleGamerTied
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 Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
rougeagent21FemaleGamerTied
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:43 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
rougeagent21FemaleGamerTied
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:70