The Instigator
OpinionatedMan
Pro (for)
Tied
11 Points
The Contender
Stephen_Hawkins
Con (against)
Tied
11 Points

The existence of a God is fundamentally impossible

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 7 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,513 times Debate No: 20620
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (7)

 

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.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Firstly, I wish to define impossible: Not able to occur, exist, or be done. Or, something that cannot be done.

But, can God's existence be impossible? Well, let's look at this simply, I will use few words, because there is only one real argument that I hold, which prima facie goes above yours.

God is rationally impossible. That is, we cannot show he is existent, or even possible, through logic. We can show that he is logically contradictory, but not generally contradictory.

Let me use an example: If I was to say that Rocky is better than Rambo, then you could say, "well, Rocky has made more in the box office" (whether it has or hasn't is moot). This is a reason why financially Rocky is better than Rambo. But if I say that I think Rambo is better, that is transcendental of the financial aspect. It simply is true.

In this way, God is logically impossible, because that involves the predicate that he stands by logical laws. God transcendes logical laws, and therefore cannot be 'proven' by them in the same way i cannot prove differentiation by first principle using literary devices, or prove gravity using Beethoven's Fifth.

In conclusion, the proof of God's inexistence is not given, simply that, rationally, one cannot defend the premies. The intuitional value of the premise, however, is unlikely.

Also, in anticipitation of any claims of "explained by science", I remind my opponent that if but one of these cases may be genuine, then God may still exist - even if they do not, then He may still exist. I require an inherent flaw in the personal experience argument.

Disclaimer: I am not Christian, nor agnostically theist.

P.S By God, are we using the word "God", or are we using "A god". If it is the latter, no random caps locks to state a deity. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
OpinionatedMan

Pro

Interesting point you raise in regards to something which a species that claims to be rational has reached to the conclusion to the fact that it exists is somehow transcendent of all logic? That is a nonsensical point to base your entire debate upon! If we reach a conclusion that an entity in fact exists, then we have accepted that our process of logical reasoning have reached a conclusion of its existence it cannot somehow 'transcend' our process of logical reasoning.

If you can neither show that God is existent nor possible through logical reasoning, then God is an impossible phenomenon. God seems to only be justified in that we want a higher power to exist so it must be there. God never began: if something never begins, it never existed. God will never end; this is impossible.

You define impossible as 'Not able to occur, exist, or be done. Or, something that cannot be done.' God is not able to occur because for something to occur it must begin. God is not able to exist because anything that exists can end (it might exist for eternity but if it can end then it exists. God cannot be 'done' but I believe you are referring to impossible actions as opposed to impossible entities with the word done.

I do not see how on Earth your Rocky versus Rambo example applies in the slightest! We are not comparing any two people here, we are discussing whether God is or is not fundamentally possible!

Now for my rebuttals; 'God is logically impossible' well if God is logically impossible I believe you have just agreed with the proposition of this debate. You are supposed to be opposing that God is impossible but if something is logically impossible then I fail to see how it is possible. That is like me saying that is logically impossible that my (biological) mother is naturally a man, but she just is. I said naturally so as to make it clear there is no trans-gender operations involved.

Secondly, 'We can show that he is logically contradictory' I find it amusing how you suggest that God is male which indicates how God was just a tool invented by men to control women but that is a separate debate although especially in the Muslim culture this seems very blatant, I have lived in Dubai I know this. Also logically contradictory is the same as illogical. The term illogical as defined by the highly regarded 'Dictionary.com' I shall source my definition: http://dictionary.reference.com...
it is defined as "contrary to or disregardful of the rules of logic" now I shall define logic so as to relate it back to the definition of illogical. According to definition 3 http://dictionary.reference.com... system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study." so now I shall infer the definition of logic back into the definition of illogical "contrary to or disregardful of the rules of the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study." All I have done is replace the word logic with the definition of logic. Now I shall use that definition in what you said to make it clear what exactly you have just stated about God; 'We can show that he is contrary to or disregardful of the rules of the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study." All I have done is altered the term 'logically contradictory' with my definition of illogical.

Now I shall replace every quote in your debate where you use anything to indicate God being illogical and replace the word with the definition of illogical to explain what you have actually said.

Original quote: "God is rationally impossible."
My explanation of what you said: "God is contrary to or disregardful of the rules of the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study."

Original quote: "God is logically impossible"
My explanation of what you said: "God is contrary to or disregardful of the rules of the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study."

Original quote:
"God's inexistence is not given, simply that, rrationally, one cannot defend the premise"
My explanation of what you said:
"God's inexistence is not given, simply that the premise of God is contrary to or disregardful of the rules of the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study."

I will not patronise you anymore. The conclusion of my debate is the title of the debate. The existence of a God is fundamentally impossible.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Your entire argument rests upon one point: As it cannot be logically proven, it cannot exist at all. I would state that this is incorrect. In fact, I would state that your entire way of looking at this proposition is coming from the wrong direction.

Logic is, simply, is constrained to logic. The rocky example was to illustrate this. To say that Rocky is better than Rambo as Rocky made more money is to predicate that the only measurement of success is through financial gain. To say that God is not possible because there is a logical contradiction is to predicate that if something is irrational, it cannot exist. However, intuition and emotion are both independent of reason -- “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them” is a famous quote accredited to Hume saying that Reason should actually come below the two. Although I believe we both disagree, there is no justification in saying that reason should subdue and remove all sense of emotion and intuition.

Also, your semantic run is very nice, but I do not enjoy that you've ignored the debate topic. I shall agree, you can change these words with each other (although the definition of illogical is wrong, and dictionary.com is a horrible source, one which I write to weekly asking for them to change their definitions of words, of which I have done so regarding their third definition of illogical, and ask that you use the more accurate second definition on the list, namely, "a particular method of reasoning or argumentation", if not a new website), but I wish to refer you to the topic for debate.

"The existence of a God is fundamentally impossible"

I apologise, but I cannot see the word "illogical" in the debate title, and would ask you to point it out to me.

Also, I shall explain my quotes, seeing as it is unfair to give your explanation as the true answer:

"God is rationally impossible" -> "God is not possible if we state that possibility is purely related to a particular method of reasoning or argumentation, and nothing else may have any effect. (from continuing the quote) However, if we accept that there are other ways to allow for something's existence, such as emotion or intuition, then we must accept that rational proof is not the only proof"

"God is logically impossible"
"God is not possible if we state that possibility is purely related to a particular method of reasoning or argumentation, and nothing else may have any effect. (from continuing the quote) However, if we accept that there are other ways to allow for something's existence, such as emotion or intuition, then we must accept that rational proof is not the only proof"


"God's inexistence is not given, simply that, rrationally, one cannot defend the premise"
"God's inexistence is not given, simply that, using a particular method of reasoning or argumentation, one cannot defend the premise"

I hope this explains my position clearly.

Also, I hope my opponent firstly explains whether he meant "a god" or "God" this time, and also why he talked about the misogynistic behaviour of a specific God if the former. And I expect us to follow the usual conduct of a debate where one does not introduce new arguments at the final round of the debate. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
OpinionatedMan

Pro

In this conclusive debate I can but only rebut your one point that was raised. Your entire debate seems to rely on that all logic, reasoning and any method of telling whether something is true or false, possible or impossible is somehow inferior to emotions? Please do not be ridiculous! There are many schizophrenics who hallucinate sights or sounds or feel the presence of totally non-existent entities. They have paranoid thoughts of someone chasing them (similar to that of God guarding them) and can simply not understand that emotions are inferior to logic when judging possible or impossible things.

In conclusion, it's all good for the whole world to have an imaginary guardian that they seem to not get rid of after childhood but fundamentally speaking, in terms of logic (logic is the only way to tell if something is possible or impossible unless you wish to hallucinate and say because it feels real, it's real) God is impossible!!!!!
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Seeing as my opponent has been concise here, I will attempt to do the same.

The entire argument was based on the point that as God is logically impossible, God is entirely impossible. The argument, as I have pointed out, is like saying because Rambo is financially better than Rocky, Rambo is entirely better than rocky.

He has ignored my entire argument in round 2, and very weakly touched on it in round three. He simply says "in terms of logic God is impossible". Therefore, he agrees with me. The disagreement was on whether God is fundamentally impossible, through things such as intuition, and emotion. For example, we can't logically prove something like suffering is immoral, or two is a number. They are intuitive, or semantical (called a "private language").

The claim that my argument relies on "all logic...is somehow inferior to emotions" is a false statement. In some cases logic has been inferior to emotion. For example, emotivism is a very popular moral theory, which places emotion as the guideline of morals. G.E.Moore, one of the most famous 20th century philosophers, believed that all morality came down to intuition. Keirkegaard's base values and base judgements - the ideas that we have a bedrock of intuitive knowledge - is one that is accepted by nearly all philosophers from all walks of life.

I never claimed that logic is inferior to emotions. I never claimed that logic is superior to intuition. Simply, that if something is not rationally true, doesn't mean that it is emotively true, or intuitively true. My opponent's attempt at any reason why reason is better was "do not be ridiculous". Great response by the way.

In conclusion, my opponent ignored my case, insulted my position, and put forth no counter arguments. His argument did not prove the resolution, while mine left room for doubt which, as per the debate of the resolution, makes there remain a possibility.

P.S My opponent has failed to answer any clarification points. I wish I could have had an answer, so the quality could have been improved, but, alas, none was given.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Double_R 4 years ago
Double_R
The question about sources is who had the most reliable sources, not who had more. Anyone can throw out tons of sources. In my debate against DanT someone gave him the source vote, even though all he did was provide dictionary definitions for words like "life" and "equal". I could have easily done the same thing but that would have been complete waste of time. There is no reason for me to define those words, everyone knows what they mean.

To judge sources you have to understand the reason why they matter in the first place. Anyone can make stuff up. When making a claim you need to support that claim with facts. Less reliable sources lead to the question of whether the facts used are accurate, therefore make the argument weaker. This makes a huge difference in a debate about whether the US should bomb Iran, or whether Obamacare should be repealed, but has no relevance in a debate about philosophy.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
thett a dictionary is still s source ...
Posted by Double_R 4 years ago
Double_R
I had to change my vote because I completely missed what Con said in round 1. Sometimes you anticipate what you are about to read and miss certain things. When Con stated that God is rationally... I really thought the word possible was next, and completely missed the "im" in front of it. As a result i spent the entire debate trying to figure out what the heck he was arguing lol.

God is not logically impossible. Pro, if you still believe he is I would take the debate.
Posted by OpinionatedMan 4 years ago
OpinionatedMan
Don't be so stupid, how can anything surpass logic u dumbo?!
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
I understand your point, wiploc. Unfortunately, I made the cardinal sin of getting used to the "first round for definitions" and expected some response in there specifically regarding my question. I understand where you vote, and wouldn't class this as a point against you (starts VBing against you...mwahahaha) but God I have always learnt is a proper noun and therefore Judaeo-Christian. A god is a deity. A God is simply poor grammar, and I would recommend giving me that one point on the regard that this lack of clarity and the desire to wilfully ignore such a problem.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Steven wrote:
: wiploc, if he answered my question, I would have done so, but he ignored it, kept switching
: between "God", "a god" and "a God", and I had no idea what he was positing.

I'm sympathetic. And yet you were there for the purpose of debating, of refuting his case. You can't wait for him to pitch one over the plate.

He wrote:
: : I am now going to introduce the theory that a God, or Deity, is in fact impossible.
: : Suppose there were an entity
: : create creatures with a systematic mind that can function independently of the God's control.
: : The God
: : the God
: : This entity
: : a God could possibly exist I stand to believe a God

So it looks to me like you could take your choice. You could posit that he isn't referring to Jehovah, but rather some random god. He appears to capitalize only because he's not good with grammar.

That's the tack I'd have taken, because I think the standard Christian god is impossible. It's easier to argue that some random god may exist than that Jehovah may, so, if it were me, I'd have taken him as talking about some random god. That's an easier refutation.

First I'd have offered grounds for this interpretation:
- The title refers to a God, not Jehovah nor any other specific god.
- His references to "a God or Deity," "the God," and "This entity," make you think he's talking about gods in general.
- His refusal to answer your question not only gives you the right to guess what he's talking about, but forces you to do so in order to be able to respond.

Then I'd have quoted his thesis sentence:

: : a God is an impossible occurrence which has no moral code since it doesn't test everyone fairly.

And I'd have explained that, while a fair god wouldn't give an unfair test, that doesn't make it impossible for an unfair god to give an unfair test. Therefore an unfair god may still exist.

Had you done so, I'll bet everyone would be voting for you.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
wiploc, if he answered my question, I would have done so, but he ignored it, kept switching between "God", "a god" and "a God", and I had no idea what he was positing.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
@ gr33k_fr33k5
: one of the worst debates ive read on this site. . . come on people, really? pro claims that "A" god is
: impossible . .. A . . . meaning that there is no possiblity that any god ever thought up by any human
: is possible. . . he didn;t define the traits of the God He was arguing against and therefore con could
: have easily invented a "new" god that in no way is "contradictory" and then wont he debate. ..

You are right that Con could easily have invented a new god that wasn't contradictory, and then he would have won the debate. But Con didn't do that, did he?

Pro's argument was easily refutable, but Con did not refute it. So I suggest you change your vote.
Posted by gr33k_fr33k5 4 years ago
gr33k_fr33k5
one of the worst debates ive read on this site. . . come on people, really? pro claims that "A" god is impossible . .. A . . . meaning that there is no possiblity that any god ever thought up by any human is possible. . . he didn;t define the traits of the God He was arguing against and therefore con could have easily invented a "new" god that in no way is "contradictory" and then wont he debate. ..

i gave it to con simply because pro's ability to make a good argument/debate was so painfully lacking.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Pro's position was extremely weak, easily refutable. He assumed, for some reason, that god had contradictory characteristics, and then pointed out that things that contradict themselves are nonexistent.

All Con had to do was point out that god might not be contradictory. Sense Pro had not met his burden of proof, had not proven god to be contradictory, Con would have a walkover.

But, instead, Con agreed that god is logically impossible, effectively conceding the debate.

Con then said that, while god cannot exist logically, he might exist intuitively or emotionally. That looks like gibberish; if he had a point, he needed to explain it better.

Victory: Pro
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
OpinionatedManStephen_HawkinsTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had BOP, and raised some points which marginally got them there in round 1. Con said pro used logic which does not apply to God. What con then needed to do is show what does. In other words, to now show god is fundamentally possible, con first had to prove why logic did not apply (which they didn't) and then prove why some alternative system shows the existence of God (which they didn't). Conduct is for various assorted insults.
Vote Placed by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
OpinionatedManStephen_HawkinsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering 16k's vote. Pro's "sources" were dictionaries. He's just trying to show he's "unbiased" after being called out as a massive votebomber. 16k, sources are supposed to be voted on if they actually contribute to the debate. Defining illogical is just a waste of time.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
OpinionatedManStephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:20 
Reasons for voting decision: I would like to refrain from arguments, but source wise pro wins as he had a few. Con had none. Yes thett a dictionary is a source ...
Vote Placed by Double_R 4 years ago
Double_R
OpinionatedManStephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con states that God is rationally impossible, but that he is possible by other means. I really don't know what this means and he did not affirm this in the debate. His argument that the possibility of God's existence can not be proven or disproven by using logic essentially wipes out his entire case, as agreeing with it requires logic. This argument in fact makes the entire concept of debating the issue pointless. Pro did not make a strong case, but Con certainly did not refute it.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
OpinionatedManStephen_HawkinsTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD for persuasion in comments. Conduct for, "Don't be so stupid, how can anything surpass logic u dumbo?!"
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
OpinionatedManStephen_HawkinsTied
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: Pro loses conduct for his remarks in round III. Con gets arguments for rebutting Pro. If God is not confined by logic, then we can not use alleged logical contradictions to prove it is impossible for him to exist. Not the best rebuttal of course, as wiploc pointed out, but it still stands. Good job to you both.
Vote Placed by gr33k_fr33k5 4 years ago
gr33k_fr33k5
OpinionatedManStephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: . . . impossible is a huge claim . . . pro cannot hope to justify it by going against what would seem to be the Christian God. . . there have been many variations of "god" and since he stated "a God" . . . his argument only really touches on the christian god