The Instigator
OpinionatedMan
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Thaddeus
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

The existence of a God is fundamentally impossible

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 5 votes the winner is...
Thaddeus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,180 times Debate No: 20572
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

OpinionatedMan

Pro

I am a fatalist; I believe in fate and that we are merely a possible occurrence that is one universe in an infinite multiverse and our 'verse' is one of many possibilities. Yet what I have found, both through logical reasoning and research is that any justification for a Deity or God of some kind relies purely on ones urge to want there to be a higher power as opposed to actually offering any logical explanation as to how a God is possible.

I am now going to introduce the theory that a God, or Deity, is in fact impossible.

Suppose there were an entity (calling God a being would be pointless since it has no beginning, cannot be interpreted by any of the five physical senses and somehow is bigger than everything by infinite magnification) and this entity had control to create whatever it saw fit, to enable any parameters it sought to be applicable to that reality and therefore perhaps create creatures with a systematic mind that can function independently of the God's control. Suppose there was such an entity, something so magnificently powerful that it could create and edit what it created as it wished, now consider that entity's priorities.

The God has many, in fact infinite, creations to entertain itself with, Earth is one of them. Humans are probably such an insignificant creation they are smaller than what an electro is to us, to God. Yet somehow the God has overcome its boredom or inactivity by creating a random scenarion with a significantly dominant species in terms of communicational aptitude. It creates two genders for them and has previously created many other animals (whether or not i used evolution to get to the human is unknown but there are suggestible similarities).

This entity never began (so clearly the time parameter of existence doesn't apply to it), has infinite height (so the y parameter of existence doesn't apply to it), has infinite width (so the x parameter of existence doesn't apply to it) and has no depth of existence (so the z parameter of existence doesn't apply to it). This entity also will never end (probably because something that never began can never end). It can 'create' energy (another impossibility) and can kill, or take lives as it pleases.

For some reason, there are a group of people who believe that this entity has a moral code, which one must stick by to live a happy, fulfilled life and afterlife (life after life defeats the very definition of death but lets not get sidetracked). The true question is that if life is a test and those who follow the right moral code win, why not kill them when they pass so that they can immediately go to heaven, or alternatively why not kill those who fail it. A third option might be killing every person at the exact same age, giving a fair test. Nonetheless, God chooses for no apparent reason to create an unfair test which some people naturally have an advantage at since they are born into a family which introduces them to religion. Yet, it is very clear that both religious and atheist people get diseases, get raped, murdered and stolen from. In the end it merely depends on ones financial situation or their intellectual ability to gain financial security that determines their success in life.

Therefore, due to the self contradictory terms in which a God could possibly exist I stand to believe a God is an impossible occurrence which has no moral code since it doesn't test everyone fairly.
Thaddeus

Con

Hullo Opinionated Man. I'm the sort of chap who likes a debate to be friendly, nice and informal, so I shall introduce myself; I am ThaddeusRiver. I am British, 19 and was dropped on my head as a baby. I like long walks on the bea-... Thats probably too much information. Anyhoo, it would be nice if I got onto the debate sometime this week, so maybe I should start. (Sometimes I feel too much like a bizarre bumbling barabillus. Its a skill of mine)

The resolution is "The existence of a God is fundamentally impossible". I am con. I'm saddened for you, my new and most dear friend, as you have created an exceptionally high burden of proof upon yourself. All I, as con, would need to do is show that there is even the tiniest sliver of a chance a god could exist to win. However, we are friends, what sort of friend would I be to not believe in you? In fact I would go as far as saying that I believe the power of friendship is magical, and together, we can do anything. What ho.

A definition for what constitutes a God wasn't clearly given so unless my bestest buddy old pal has anyone objections I'll give it shotto.

Off the old interwebs, I happenchanced upon this rather neat set of definitions [1]
god

n.

1. God

a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.

4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.

5. A very handsome man.

6. A powerful ruler or despot.




Lets start from the bottom (or if you aren't in the mood for the archbishop of Banterbury, skip to 1);

6. A powerful ruler or despot
Clearly exists; http://en.wikipedia.org.... However, though I frequently get told I'm socially retarded, I must say I got the tiniest sort of impression this wasn't what he was talking about. Lets throw this definition out the window. *crash*. Shizzle, it hit an old lady on the head. I think she's dead. See you in a few days - I need to lay low for a bit.

* 3 days later * Dayamn, I'm back. I may have murdered a cop who was chasing me for the other murder. Whoopsidaisy. I miss Daisy. I'm feeling very lackadaisical in that I lack Daisy right now. Onto 5

5. A very handsome man. Clearly exists; http://www.debate.org.... You want more proof; check out my many admirers [2] . Though... Opinionatedman didn't know me before we became friends when I accepted this debate. Lets put this definition aside, (gently does it - damn this headache, I need some painkillers). Jolly good.

4,3,2 I had to reduce the banter content for more argument content. Sorry old bean.

On to 1; "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe

This seems spiffing - but I propose one small changeroodlewho; we remove the second clause about monotheism, as quite evidently if multiple gods existed, a god would exist too, thus fulfilling my burden of proof. Right, now my lecturer is a total bumder and set quite a bit of work for me to be getting on with so I'll be Bach and you can be Mozart. Who am I kidding; I'll just be killing time.

Hokai; to the meat and the meet of your argument my chum.
Your 1st argument (A) is as such;
1. "God" would have to be infinite in all dimensions
2. Something which is infinite in each of these dimensions cannot be described as existing in them.

Your second argument (B) is as follows;
1. People believe this entity which provides a moral code (and subsequently, must be a perfect source of this moral code). This is how your argument reads. However, us being such great friends, I know that what you meant was not that god must be benevolent because people believe he is, but rather, because it is part of an idea often presented as a god by such individuals. Please correct me if you did mean the former.

2. This moral code is a test

3. The test is unfair

4. A perfect God can not be unfair (implied – you didn’t state it)

5. Therefore God can not exist

Okillidokilly - (A) now

Why would a God, under any reasonable definition, necessarily need need to be infinite in all dimensions (x,y,z, time etc)? This was not explained in your argument. Secondly, it is an assertion without warrant that being infinite in a dimension means that the dimension does not apply to it. Surely if something has an infinite amount of quantity q, the attribute q is relevant to it? For example, take myself; I am infinitely awesome and cool (and sexy[2]). It would be absurd to say that I can not be described has having awesomeness because I am infinitely so.

I reckon I'll cheekilly turn to (B) now;

Your argument here was quite confusingly worded, so my interpretation of your argument above may be flawed. I’ll try my best to do you justice. (Also, I’ll try my best to do you, Justice. That’s right. Tonight, miss Justice, I’ll do you)

The rebuttal here is that God may have a sufficient moral reason for not making everything equal or fair; it may not seem probable, but it certainly is possible, which fulfils my burden of evidence. There are more intelligent responses here about how it isn’t a test, but rather Hell is justice or how it is not necessarily an attribute of god to be just (as it could be a subjective human thingamagig), so a god could easily exist who is unfair by human standards, but I don’t really see the need so I won’t unless my opponent tears this argumentywhore down.

Now to my rather self evident defence;

A god, as defined, does not have any self contradictory elements; we may not have much or any evidence, but it certainly probably might maybe could exist. (This argument works 60% of the time 100% of the time)

Luckilly it is your turn to respond.
I've written you a poem;

Thaddeus
your friend
Ate cheese
He wasn't fond of it
He spookilly died



[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;

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

Debate Round No. 1
OpinionatedMan

Pro

No, the God I am referring to has nothing to do with handsome men nor the force or manifestation of a supernatural being. I shall go with your definition of "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions."

I stand by what I said in round one and also I do not understand a word of what you said apart from the definitions. I have read it three times through and still don't understand that point you are trying to make?
Thaddeus

Con

Hmm. It seems my buddy and I have a communication problem. I shall reiterate what I said in the previous round, but without the jokes.

Your 1st argument ( now called A) is as such;
1. "God" would have to be infinite in all dimensions
2. Something which is infinite in each of these dimensions cannot be described as existing in them.


Your second argument (now called B) is as follows;
1. People believe this entity which provides a moral code (and subsequently, must be a perfect source of this moral code). This is how your argument reads. However, us being such great friends, I know that what you meant was not that god must be benevolent because people believe he is, but rather, because it is part of an idea often presented as a god by such individuals. Please correct me if you did mean the former.

2. This moral code is a test

3. The test is unfair

4. A perfect God can not be unfair (implied – you didn’t state it)

5. Therefore God can not exist


My rebuttal to A

Why would a God, under any reasonable definition, necessarily need need to be infinite in all dimensions (x,y,z, time etc)? This was not explained in your argument. Secondly, it is an assertion without warrant that being infinite in a dimension means that the dimension does not apply to it. Surely if something has an infinite amount of quantity q, the attribute q is relevant to it? For example, take the line X = Y; it extends infinitely in both the Y and the X axis, yet X and Y are still dimensions attributal to line. In fact, they define it. It would be absurd to say that that the line can not be described in the dimensions X and Y. In this case it is opposite, it can solely be described in the X and Y dimensions.

(B) now;

Your argument here was quite confusingly worded, so my interpretation of your argument above may be flawed. I’ll try my best to do you justice.

The rebuttal here is that God may have a sufficient moral reason for not making everything equal or fair; it may not seem probable, but it certainly is possible, which fulfils my burden of evidence.
To explain further here; a sufficient moral reason for creating an unfair test would be a moral condition which would make it the moral action to create the test in its unfair state. I can't give an example, but that doesn't preclude one existing.

There are more intelligent responses here about how it in most theologies isn’t a test, but rather Hell is justice or how it is not necessarily an attribute of god to be just (as it could be a subjective human characteristic/attribute), so a god could easily exist who is unfair by human standards, but I don’t really see the need so I won’t unless my opponent tears this argument down.

Defence;

A god, as defined, does not have any self contradictory elements; we may not have much or any evidence, but it certainly could exist. Being able to demonstrate that a God could exist fulfills my burden of evidence.

Debate Round No. 2
OpinionatedMan

Pro

Why would a Test be unfair? That defeats the purpose of testing several results. It means more variables than the one being tested are being altered!
Thaddeus

Con

As a response I must confess I am whole heartedly disappointed. As of this moment, we are no longer friends. You will not be expected at my birthday party and I am burning our scrapbook. The most succinct response I could devise was; What?
You see my general impression of your round 3 argument was one of total bewilderment, you hardly defend your own arguments and the defence you provide is so weak it could compared to the "Iron Lady"'s attempt at being oscar bait.
While we are airing our dirty laundry I think I ought to point out that I never liked your avatar. OpinionatedMan, you are not a ninja, you will never be a ninja and you smell bad. Ninjas can't smell bad. If they did, they would be detected. If that happened they wouldn't be ninjas. When you walk into a building the whole block "detects" you.
You also never watch Jersey Shore ironically with me.

Say we grant your statement of tests being unable to be unfair as true, this does not preclude the possibility that there is no test. Life being a moral test is not a criteria for god's existence. Its not even a part of Christian theology.

Anyway, back to ranting.
Chocolate? What the fudge (see what I did there?) is up with chocolate nowadays? Most of it doesn't taste like chocolate. You have your mint chocalate, your chocolate oranges, your chocolate with rice in it. Hell I even saw a chocolate stick with some icecream attatched. The icecream was much bigger than the chocolate with a cone and everything!

Speaking of cones; is that a really weird shape. Its kind of got the whole circle thing going, but also with a triangle vibe. I think I like it.

Has anyone watched the latest Sherlock Holmes movie yet? I didn't really like. Not anywhere near as good as the recent T.V series.

If I were running for president, would you guys vote for me? Who I am kidding? Of course you would. I have Lupus.
I don't actually. Did you know that one of the members of this site has the surname Actually? Must be awesome if anyone gets her name wrong.
"Yo Igglestigo - what up?"
"My name is Igglestein* Actually"
Heh. Love it.

Reminds me of a great joke I heard the other day. So; there were two pencils having a race, y'know how it is. Yeah, they drew. Got another one; what's the difference between the french and toast?
.
.
.
.
.
Oops I forgot I was talking to myself.
Anyway, you can make soldiers out of toast.
One of the dudes in my hall just merked a guy. I should probably go check that out. I'll write you a play for the next round if I've nothing better to do. Check out my early plays some time. I like the ones with zombies in them.

* not her actual first name. But I think it should be. That would be cool.
Debate Round No. 3
OpinionatedMan

Pro

OpinionatedMan forfeited this round.
Thaddeus

Con

Ignatious Creek; The world's greatest dragon detective - part 1

[The setting is an dark alleyway. Two men in dark suits appear at either end. They are oth carrying suit cases]

Dorothy [in a deep russian accent]: You have the weapons?
Stevooo[High pitched and nasal]: N'yeeaas. Meeehehehehehehehe. [Snorts] Have you got the money?
Dorothy: Oh I have want you want...
[He opens his case and a grizzly bear leaps out]
Stevooo: N'yeah. That line only works if you are killing me by giving me too much of something I want. N'yeah. Not a massive f'yan on b'years. [Backing away from the bear] S'yoo... [looks up] One muffin says to another muffin; "you ever danced with the devil in pale moonlight?" The other muffin says; "No", the First muffin says: "Oh, you should its good fun", the oven says "Aggh talking muffins.". [To himself] I can see what he meant about using a shyortah code phrase.

Dorothy; I will enjoy watching you die. Then, going to pizza hut for celebration.
[Suddenly a dragon swoops in from above, he punches Dorothy]
Ignatious: Crime never prevails sexually confused russian mobster! Strictly speaking, it often does, but I'm trying to reduce that percentage. Spice things up a little.
[He hits dorothy again, with the words Shazaam next his punch]
[Stevooo thanks Ignatious. He then exits, chased by a bear]

The end.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by JakeBoatman96 5 years ago
JakeBoatman96
Religion is a tough one for me to debate on, I'm a little shaky in my faith... wherever it may go.
Posted by chris20 5 years ago
chris20
four words ur going to hell
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
I did state that I realise you wouldn't like those definitions, so if you weren't in the mood for my jokes, use the last, then read my quite simple and easy to understand rebuttal and arguments.
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
Just a promise to my fellow debater that I will submit my argument in time. I'm just a little buried with work.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Yarely 5 years ago
Yarely
OpinionatedManThaddeusTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: OpinionatedMan didn't refute any of Con's arguments. Thadd, I hope you enjoyed watching Pro die. Now you can go to Pizza Hut to celebrate
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
OpinionatedManThaddeusTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Poorly argued by the pro
Vote Placed by bluesteel 5 years ago
bluesteel
OpinionatedManThaddeusTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't rebut and forfeited
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
OpinionatedManThaddeusTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: OpionatedMan, unfortunately, failed to note the exact definition of god and this opened his case to portholes that were exposed by Thad. Pro made little rebuttals to Con's case (ex. questioning whether or not god should be infinite in all dimensions, that he must be kind, and so forth) and his forfeited cemented his loss. :)
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
OpinionatedManThaddeusTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited, and didn't even really rebut any of Con's arguments.