The Instigator
DLazman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
adontimasu
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

The Lasris Argument

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
adontimasu
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/16/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,374 times Debate No: 25642
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (35)
Votes (3)

 

DLazman

Pro

The Lasris Argument has never been defeated by any Theist and never will be. The argument is for the Existence of God. Theists only have 2 options:


MB or REAL



  1. MB is Make Believe, meaning someone came up with a fictitious story of an invisible being(s) in the sky who looks after us and does magical things. This category also includes any made up stories on the existence of a God(s).

  2. REAL is REAL, meaning you believe God(s) are real.


With MB, you claim to actually know that your God(s) are Make Believe, but you choose to believe otherwise. This of course is Logical and Rational for Kids, but is Irrational and Illogical for Adults. This can also include Agnostics.


With REAL, you claim to know that God(s) are REAL without any evidence to support the claim. As it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that something does not exist, the Burden of Proof will always be on the Theist. This claim is also Irrational and Illogical and has no evidence to back it up.If you try to defend it, make sure you understand a few things.



  1. It is considered Circular reasoning to say the Bible is proof by quoting scripture from it. As the Bible is written by man and not God, it is not a valid argument.

  2. Nor is Jesus a valid argument for this defense as he also has no evidence to support his existence or the supernatural claims that go along with him.

  3. Philosophy is NOT needed here, nor is Quantum Theory, Creationism or Evolutionism. These do NOT pertain to the argument.

  4. Any thing you make up as a defense that has no evidence will fall under the MB Option.


If you have evidence, you must present it for all to see. As no one has been able to give true scientific evidence that has been peer reviewed and documented, this will be very hard for you to do.The conclusion to my argument is that God does not exist!


The only difference between this argument and others out there is that you do not have any other options. If you can present one with evidence that cannot be disputed, you have won this argument!

adontimasu

Con

My primary problem with this argument is that it is a false dichomy: that is to say, not all theistic beliefs are either MB or REAL. The crux of my opponent"s argument is that these two beliefs are the only options available. This is not true. He attempts to dismiss arguments for agnosticism by claiming that it belongs under the category of MB. I find this argument pitiful, at best.

My opponent states: "With MB, you claim to actually know that your God(s) are Make Believe, but you choose to believe otherwise. This of course is Logical and Rational for Kids, but is Irrational and Illogical for Adults. This can also include Agnostics." I can accept this statement. The problem with it, however, is that this does not apply to agnostic theists; in fact, it is the exact opposite of agnostic theism. Let me bring up my first source in order to prove this: "An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the truth or falsehood of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable." [1] The belief, by its very definition, regards the truth of its claim to be unknown or unknowable. If this is the case, then they cannot be MB, because they do not, by their very definition, know the deity or deities are MB.

By proving the fact that there is more than just a REAL or MB option for theists, I have fulfilled my burden of proof, as the argument only works if these are the only options. I eagerly await my opponent's reply.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
DLazman

Pro

Okay, as my opponent wants to use a site that the creator even states is not a valid source for using in debates as it is flawed through editting by anyone, I will ask that that source be strikin and not used as a valid source of information.

Asfar as my opponent trying to discredit my argument with classifications, their are only 2 true classifications. Theist and Atheist! Anything in between is an undecided notion.

As there is no evidence on the Theist side for claiming the existence of God, They either believe their God is REAL or Make Believe and still believe!

This is not an argument for agnosticism and the debate should be about the issue not indecision!

Please get back on topic!

adontimasu

Con

I disagree completely. Ignoring the fact that most people on this site consider Wikipedia to be a reasonable source, I will give a different definition; one that you likely will accept: "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena." (I"m referring to the first given definition; the second one is a secondly used definition by people, which is not what I am referring to.) [1]

I at no point claimed that agnosticism was a middle position. In fact, my entire point hinges on the fact that it is not. It can be a type of theism. It states that one cannot know, or one does not know, whether or not a deity exists. As they do not know, they cannot be within the MB section as my opponent states. As they do not claim to know, they cannot be in the REAL category either. Therefore, the argument does not apply to agnostic theists.

I am on topic. Now, please refute my point instead of refusing to accept a source that most everybody else on the site does accept.

[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 2
DLazman

Pro

As for your stance on agnoticism being valid in my argument. Agnostic Theism, Gnostic Theism. Agnosticism, Agnostic Atheism and Gonstic Atheism are not a part of this argument and therefore are not vaild at all.

You either believe or you don't! Is there a god or is there not? If you claim there is a god whether you know or not, you fall under MB and that is my point.

If you are arguing just to be heard and do not understand what this argument is, then this is no longer a debate.

If you want to debate this argument and you are a theist, then do you believe a god exists? And if you do, can you give a third option if the first 2 do not fit your views.

Posting links and definitions of what something is when you are not looking at the issue in it's basic form is not helping you in this debate.

Again, please keep on topic as you said you were, but obviously are not!
adontimasu

Con

My opponent has not provided any justifiable reason why they are not a part of the debate. He simply says they are not. I believe I have justified how they are. You stated that no theist can provide an argument against this. However, your argue replies on a false dichomy. Both of these ideas require that the person know for certain (at least within their own mind) that they make something up or that the deity is real, which is exactly what you said in your first post.

Agnostic theists are still theists. As such, your resolution applies just as much to them as to gnostic theists (those that this argument defeats). At no point did I claim that there was a middle ground. Once again, you seem to be implying that I am arguing that agnosticism is a middle ground; it isn"t. It has no relevance in belief, it has relevance in knowledge. You might claim, then, that this is irrelevant to the discussion, but I disagree. You brought up knowledge by claiming that a MB knows that they made something up, and that a REAL knows that a deity exists. Therefore, you bring up that both of your points have a knowledge, meaning that this argument only applies to gnostic theists (those who have a knowledge that the deity exists) or secret atheists. Agnostic theists are neither of these things.

I did look at the arguments in their basic form. That"s how I came to the conclusion that it doesn"t fit with agnostic theists to begin with. You have not justified how agnosticism has no relevance, while I have. Please either provide legitimate justification (besides you simply saying that it is so with no other reason posted) or concede to the point.
Debate Round No. 3
DLazman

Pro

I concede to my opponent on the fact that the argument was directed to Theists , whether Agnostic Theists or Gnostic theists.

You either believe or you don't. That is the claim of this argument along with the existence of god.

As my opponent decides to argue against without actually following the argument, I will bow out. It is not worth arguing with a like minded individual who just want to argue to get more wins on his profile!
adontimasu

Con

The argument I was making was against this specific point in your argument, that is completely necessary for it to work: "With MB, you claim to actually know that your God(s) are Make Believe, but you choose to believe otherwise. This of course is Logical and Rational for Kids, but is Irrational and Illogical for Adults. This can also include Agnostics." I stated that agnostics cannot possibly fall under this definition, because they, by its very definition, have no knowledge, and therefore cannot "know" that your God(s) are MB.

My opponent has refused to argue this point, claiming that this is strictly about belief. I contend. This became about knowledge as well as belief the second you restricted the definitions of MB and REAL to include active knowledge. Therefore, whether the theist has an active knowledge or not is completely relevant. My opponent is merely backing out of the debate because he cannot argue against my points; whether I'm a theist or not is irrelevant, because this is about whether the argue is sound. Just like a Christian can believe that the Kalam Cosmological argument is not sound, I can believe that the Lasris Argument is the pile of sh*t it is.
Debate Round No. 4
DLazman

Pro

If that point is unneccessary, then why even worry about it! You have not made any case on this argument other than stating your disagreement with it without actually a third option! False Dichotomy or not, it is still a valid argument and you did not refute it, you refuted a part of it and that does not make the argument less valid!

Like I said, I forfeit on the reasons that this debate was not carried out in the way the argument was presented!
adontimasu

Con

I did provide a third option: unsure. I thought I made that clear. Unsure is an option other than those two, because those two depend upon the notion of active knowledge; unsure does not depend upon this notion, meaning that it cannot fall under either of these categories. I have also shown that there are theists who are unsure, which makes it a viable option. I would say I have won this debate, regardless of whether or not my opponent has forfeited.
Debate Round No. 5
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 5 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
Question For DLazman:

I study arguments about God and atheism regularly. I've never heard of the Lasris argument. You said it was an argument for the existence of God, but you also said it has never been defeated by any theist. Well, if it is an argument FOR God, then why would a THEIST be interested in defeating it? Theists are interested in defeating arguments AGAINST God, obviously.
Posted by DLazman 5 years ago
DLazman
Sorry, but the Bible as written by man and therefor is not valid as evidence for God. Your example is quite awful as prophecy is science fiction and unproven and I have yet to see or hear of anything Scientific in the bible that hasn't been disproven by science.

Jesus may have been a person of history, but as he was written into the book years after his death by those who never really knew him, that is all they are, stories. All your so called evidence for Jesus has been disproven.

Nice try!
Posted by Billdekel 5 years ago
Billdekel
"Nor is Jesus a valid argument for this defense as he also has no evidence to support his existence or the supernatural claims that go along with him."

Arguments for Jesus' resurrection are strong and valid. There is evidence for his existence! Historian Josephus wrote about him. Some of the testimonium is an interpolation but not all of it.
Posted by Billdekel 5 years ago
Billdekel
"It is considered Circular reasoning to say the Bible is proof by quoting scripture from it. As the Bible is written by man and not God, it is not a valid argument."

That's like saying you cannot find out who is president by walking into the white house. If the bible says something that couldn't be known at that time. Such as prophecy or scientific foreknowledge then its valid.
Posted by DLazman 5 years ago
DLazman
Here is the link to the page: http://www.facebook.com...
Posted by adontimasu 5 years ago
adontimasu
I cannot promise I can be of any help, but I can try, sure.
Posted by DLazman 5 years ago
DLazman
Only one voter and you won on sources and because i forfeit!

Let's agree to disagree and maybe you can help me develop this argument better. Would you be willing to do that?
Posted by adontimasu 5 years ago
adontimasu
I can prove my point by saying that, if an atheist can do it, a theist can. Case in point: 1) I am human. 2) I beat the argument. 3) Therefore, a human can beat the argument. 4) Theists are humans. 5) Therefore, theists can beat the argument. Bam. Proven.

No, it is not correct. Agnosticism is not a middle position, belief-wise. You either believe or you don't. You just don't know for sure.

I'm not sure that if you remove the agnostic part, it will be valid. It might be. I would need to consider the argument and see the criticisms levied against it in its new form beforehand.

I do not see where I have gone wrong, because I have yet to go wrong. The voters seem to agree.
Posted by DLazman 5 years ago
DLazman
"The argument was about whether or not this argument could be defeated. I proved it can" By a Theist, not an Atheist! A big difference!

Okay, so an Agnostic Theist does not claim to know whether a god exists or not but choose to believe one does. They choose not to dwell on the existence of a god but claim they believe in one!

Agnosticism is a neutral position for which one does not know anything and will either way each side or just stay ignorant to avoid having to make a decision. Is this correct?

So if an Agnostic Theist chooses to believe, but does not claim the existence of a god, they have no validity in the argument as a Theist. Is this correct?

So if I was to remove the Agnostic part of the argument, it would then be valid. Correct?

So where exactly am I wrong besides your argument against agnosticism? Has a Theist defeated this argument yet? No and if you would have allowed it to be debated by a Theist, we could have found out if I was wrong or not. An atheist debating over an atheistic claim is like calling yourself a winner in a game of tic-tac-toe with yourself! There are many more debates you could have chosen to refute, but you did it on one you could have left to who it was directed!

Do you really not see where you have gone wrong and why you are wrong?
Posted by adontimasu 5 years ago
adontimasu
"You are wrong in this with your claim and you know it, but you still argue your point! This is pointless." You claim I am wrong, yet you have yet to prove it. I've proven how I was right. I argue the point because it has yet to be proven incorrect. It is only pointless because you refuse to accept reality; that isn't my fault, mate. ;)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by medic0506 5 years ago
medic0506
DLazmanadontimasuTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Easy win for Con on arguments and sources. Lasris does create a false dichotomy, and thus does nothing to refute God.
Vote Placed by FREEDO 5 years ago
FREEDO
DLazmanadontimasuTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This "Lasris Argument" is essentially one big non sequitur. It has no substance. It doesn't to draw any conclusion out of clear points leading up to it. It isn't even an argument at all. I changed my vote from earlier because I thought there was plagiarism. I was mistaken.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
DLazmanadontimasuTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I won't vote on arguments, even though it is obvious who won them. Pro forfeited and con was the only one who provided sources.