The Instigator
tvellalott
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
eball45
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The existance of God

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 4 votes the winner is...
tvellalott
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,883 times Debate No: 14770
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (4)

 

tvellalott

Con

My opponent and I have been discussing religion. I figure we should both put our money where our mouths are.

Equal burdon of proof.

Lets see who can make a better case for or against the existance of the Christian God (since my opponent is a Christian).

If he accepts these terms or wishs to alter them, he should should do so in the first round. Arguments begin in round two.

Good luck to you.

eball45

Pro

Ok, so we were arguing about the existence of God. I'm arguing that the atheist position is the most irrational position you can take in the god debate; it simply falls apart on the altars of logic. I wasn't necessarily arguing for a christian god, but for a god in general, since my opponnent was arguing an atheistic position. However, I can certainly defend my christian position as well.
The logic goes: If I ask you(atheist) to draw a circle indicating the knowledge mankind is capable of achieving, how large would your circle be? I would suspect very large. Now, if I asked you to draw a circle within that circle indicating the amount of knowledge we currently posess, how large would your circle be relative to the larger circle? It would be extremely small I'd suspect, unless one is very arrogant. Finally, I ask, isn't it possible that god exists outside of that small circle?? Pure objective logic tells us this has to be possible. An atheist believes there is no god. An agnostic believes this can't be known and is therefore neutral. A believer in god, believes just that; god exists. So, I argue that for one to say "god doesn't exist" he must have as much faith in this proposition as the man who says "god exists." Therefore, it's completely irrational for an atheist to say religion and faith are silly and make no sense. It's a very hypocritical position to take, seeing as how atheism is a sort of religion in its self that takes a considerable amount of faith to believe in.
Debate Round No. 1
tvellalott

Con

Thank you to my opponent for accepting this debate.

I apolagiz fur mah tarrible spelin in teh firts rownd an in da titel.

REBUTTALS

"If I ask you(atheist) to draw a circle indicating the knowledge mankind is capable of achieving, how large would your circle be? I would suspect very large."

It would be extremely large, yes.

"Now, if I asked you to draw a circle within that circle indicating the amount of knowledge we currently posess, how large would your circle be relative to the larger circle? It would be extremely small I'd suspect, unless one is very arrogant."

Yes, one would have to be very arrogant to suggest we have anywhere near the possible knowledge mankind might acquire in it's entire existence. It would be very small.

"Finally, I ask, isn't it possible that god exists outside of that small circle?"

Outside the small circle, but inside the large one?
No. If any sort of God exists (which I clearly believe is not the case) I believe it would be certainly outside the possible knowledge of mankind, therefore outside both of the circles of your analogy.

We're talking about an omniscient and omnipotent being, correct? How could we possible be capable of understanding such a being? THAT is arrogance.

"Pure objective logic tells us this has to be possible."


Anything is possible outside of the realms of our finite knowledge, that is logic. However, by making assumptions as you are, you're commiting one of the most common logical fallacies: Ad ignorantiam; an argument from ignorance.

"Therefore, it's completely irrational for an atheist to say religion and faith are silly and make no sense.."

No.
In order to make a positive claim (God exists) you must provide positive evidence.
Many of your fellow Theists provide so-called evidence.
Here are some of the common arguments for God:
  • Argument from Holy Scripture
  • Argument from Miracles
  • Argument from Design
  • Cosmological Arguments
  • Ontological Arguments
  • And so on...

At best, these are simply unprovable philosophical arguments.
At worst, they're plain ridiculous.
Which one's do you support? None are outside reasonable doubt and all have been addressed countless times but my fellow Atheists.

"[Atheism is] a very hypocritical position to take, seeing as how atheism is a sort of religion in its self that takes a considerable amount of faith to believe in."

Here we go again, with you calling Atheism a religion and claiming we have faith in it.
Atheism is not a religion. It takes the position that God doesn't exist; it is the lack of religion.
We don't have 'faith' in it, since we aren't making any kind of positive assertion.

Once we explained the sun rising and setting people with the story of Helios riding a chariot of fire through the sky; alas such ridiculous stories have been filed under "myth".


ARGUMENTS

MOVING THE GOALPOSTS (Credit to Peter D. Wilson)

Here is my analogy: Santa Clause (you believe in Santa Clause, right? But its possible he exists outside the small circle but inside the big circle? o.O;) travels the world once a year, delivering presents to all the boys and girls. He travels on a sleigh pulled by eight flying reindeer.

How can you disprove this? Perhaps you could take a bunch of reindeer up on top of a tall building and start pushing them off; surely they will fly to safety.
You could push every reindeer on Earth off of said building and come no closer to disproving the existence of flying reindeer. Obviously the flying ones flew away before they could be caught...

The purpose of my analogy is to demonstrate the absurdity of two things:
-Believing outlandish claims simply because there are presents under your tree.
-Proving nonexistence is impossible.

However, we can both our powers of observation and the acquired mass of human knowledge (Google baby) to make intelligent assumptions, like...

MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION IS SO RIDICULOUS, BRAH.


I'm sure that some of my theist friends on this site would strongly disagree me, but Christianity and Islam is just too ridiculous for me to believe.
I'll focus on Christianity, but we can discuss Islam and Judaism if you like...

The Bible is clearly the work of man. It contains no knowledge that was outside of what man knew during the time that it was written (2000BC-200AD).
It is full of mythology that we see elsewhere; stories remarkably similar to other Gods in older religions, particularly Greek, Egyptian and Babylonian.

How can you justify this?

I mean, if God was going to write a book to benefit mankind, why would he write THAT book? Why include chapter after chapter of stories about morality, but not include a few tidbits of science, like telling us about hygiene? I mean it was around back then, though clearly in a less refined form. Why not mention that washing yourself was a good way to prevent the spread of diseases which have killed millions of people, many of them Christians. It doesn't seem very moral to me.


SUMMARY
  • There is no reason to doubt the nonexistence of God, simply because we cannot prove his nonexistence.
  • The Holy Scriptures are utter rubbish. (I can and will elaborate further on this in future rounds)
Atheism for the win.

VOTE Con.
eball45

Pro

The definition of faith is, making an assumption that something is or is not, without sufficient evidence.
By saying that God could exist anywhere outside of your small circle indicates you not knowing if god exists. Further, since you say it would be outside of the large circle, it will never be possible for you to empirically know if god does or doesn't exist. Therefore, you must excercise the definition of faith for your atheist position. Faith isn't dependent on a positive assertion. It's simply taking a position without the evidence to prove you being right or wrong. Your worldview must give you a horrible concept of what faith is. Faith and belief are synonamous. You believe there is no god, since you already admitted you can't know, therefore, since faith and belief are synonamous, you have faith in there not being a god.
If you say anything could be outside of your circle, this only further supports my position. It doesn't matter what you say can be outside of the circle. God, is a bit more reasonable than Santa Clause though I must say. Obviously, since it's probably the most widely debated topic in the world. You've said nothing that makes an atheists belief(faith) in no god different from a religionists belief(faith) in god. All you said is anything could be outside of our small little circle. Anything most certainly includes god. Your worldview dictates you examining real world data inside the small circle, and from that, inferring there is no god. A religionist does the same but infers there is a god. That being said, one can't prove either side. Therefore, it's a matter of faith. This is pure logic you can't argue against that. Either you change your position to "we can't know" (agnostic) or start saying you know god doesn't exist. Because saying you believe god doesn't exist implies, since you already said we can't know, that you have faith in this assertion. A=A is a logical truth. We can't know, but I know , is the same as saying A=B. Therefore, as much as you seem to hate it, you aren't much different from the religious man. I don't say this to upset you. I say this because you to are excercising belief.
As far as Christianity goes. One event defines the entire religion. Did Christ rise from the dead? Either all those people lied and it spread through a very skeptical pagan empire at an extremely rapid rate. Or, it happened.
Since our senses are quite fallible, much of the world we take in will be interpreted according to our wordview. So, for the atheist, obviously this will be a complete impossibility. This isn't so for a religious wordview. But, again, this can't be proven. We circle back to our faith argument. You believe it didn't happen. I believe it did. Thats it. I can't criticize you or say your irrational. But, you cant criticize or tell me i'm irrational. If you did, this would come from a purely emotional place. Neither one of us knows anything. We just believe differently. Indirectly, you admitted this with the circle analogy. So, without the ability to prove A doesn't = A I'd say in simple objective logic, I've shown that it's no more rational to be an atheist than a religionist. It's only a matter of how this tiny little circle gets interpreted.
Debate Round No. 2
tvellalott

Con

tvellalott forfeited this round.
eball45

Pro

eball45 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
tvellalott

Con

First: my apologies for forfeiting the last round.
I simply wasn’t near a computer to post it. Given this is the last round; I won’t make any new arguments.

REBUTTALS (I’ll try to make my opponents argument easier to read…)


“The definition of faith is: making an assumption that something is or is not, without sufficient evidence. “
I’ll accept that definition for the sake of this debate.

“By saying that God could exist anywhere outside of your small circle indicates you not knowing if god exists. “
Well clearly. I’ve already argued that it impossible to prove nonexistence…

“Further, since you say it would be outside of the large circle, it will never be possible for you to empirically know if god does or doesn't exist.“
Indeed. Again, I have already argued that not being able to prove nonexistence is not a good reason to have doubt in something’s nonexistence; like flying reindeer…
I will say it: I – DON’T –KNOW.
However, given the evidence I find the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient being that cares about our insignificant lives extremely unlikely.

“Therefore, you must exercise the definition of faith for your atheist position. “
“If you say anything could be outside of your circle, this only further supports my position. “
“You've said nothing that makes an atheists belief (faith) in no god different from a religionists belief(faith) in god. “

NO! I’ve said this repeatedly. I base my position on the evidence. The evidence as I interpret it is that God is not needed in the equation of our existence. We have other theories about how the Universe came to be (Multiverse theory; Big Bang Theory), how Earth came to exist (a rocky body left over after the formation of the Sun), how life started on Earth (abiogenesis) and how life came to exist in the many forms it is in now (Evolution).
God creating the Heavens and the Earth in the beginning is obsolete.

“Your worldview dictates you examining real world data inside the small circle, and from that, inferring there is no god. A religionist does the same but infers there is a god. “
Indeed. I feel the evidence against a God is much stronger and nothing you’ve said has made me think otherwise.

“Either you change your position to "we can't know" (agnostic) or start saying you know god doesn't exist. “
I find the existence of God so unlikely that the fact he MIGHT exist is irrelevant; like flying reindeer.

“As far as Christianity goes. One event defines the entire religion. Did Christ rise from the dead? Either all those people lied and it spread through a very skeptical pagan empire at an extremely rapid rate. Or, it happened.”
  • We know people lie or are mistaken about religious revelation. (Joseph Smith; L. Ron Hubbard)
  • We know Constantine wanted to unite “the very sceptical pagans” and made Christianity the new religion of the empire, founding the Catholic Church.
  • We know people can’t rise from the dead.

“Since our senses are quite fallible, much of the world we take in will be interpreted according to our wordview.”

Do you think it’s possible the people two thousand years ago were mistaken about any of the key elements of the Jesus story which support his divinity?

SECOND ROUND: “I can't criticize you or say your irrational.”
FIRST ROUND: “Therefore, it's completely irrational for an atheist to say religion and faith are silly and make no sense.”
Ok… now you’re backtracking.

“But, you can’t criticize or tell me i'm irrational. If you did, this would come from a purely emotional place. “
I certainly can criticise you, since you have not made a non-fallacious argument.

CONCLUSION

My opponent made his circle analogy in the forums and has persisted with it. It is basically the only argument he has made and I’ve already pointed out that it’s fallacious.

I’ve explained my position and it has only been vaguely addressed.

VOTE Con
eball45

Pro

eball45 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
You do assume he exists, since you can't possibly know. If you "KNOW" and Muslims "KNOW" and Jews "KNOW" and Buddhists "KNOW" and everyone friggin' knows something different, one of you is BOUND to be wrong. I'm just of the opinion that you're all wrong.
Posted by batman1200 6 years ago
batman1200
but what if it is not assuming? I think that it is rather arrogant of you to say that we "assume" that he exists.
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
I think assuming you know something about the nature of the Universe that you couldn't possibly know is arrogent.
Posted by batman1200 6 years ago
batman1200
in the second round, like i said
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
I'm not sure what part of my argument you're talking about...
Posted by batman1200 6 years ago
batman1200
you (tvellalott)
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
Who are you talking to batman1200?
Posted by batman1200 6 years ago
batman1200
first i would like to state that when in the second round you say that stating that there is an omnipotent is prideful, you are not taking into account that the christian faith (and i do believe that we are arguing on the existence of a christian God) is based on humility, and wen we (as Christians) say that God is real, we are humbling ourselves to a greater being. I you say that you know someone that lives in another state who is very smart, smarter than you, that is humble, unless the definition of humility has changed since the last time i checked, and that was after i read your argument
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
Sorry about the forfeit.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
It's because I have faith that tvellalott is losing.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
tvellalotteball45Tied
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: con absolutely destroyed all of pro's arguments
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
tvellalotteball45Tied
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 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
tvellalotteball45Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
tvellalotteball45Tied
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