The Instigator
owen99999
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
anExpoMarker
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points

The existence of god

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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...
owen99999
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,488 times Debate No: 20371
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (42)
Votes (4)

 

owen99999

Con

I believe that god does not exist. I have absolutely nothing against people believe he does exist however i believe there is no scientific evidence that could lead you to a logical conclusion that god exists. I am an anti theist which means i disagree with religion itself. I believe that theism is one of the biggest causes of suffering on this planet and whilst there are some good aspects of religion, I feel the bad aspects out do them by miles. As the phrase goes which sums up my belief against religion itself:
Science flies people to the moon. Religion flies people into buildings.

This debate is about the existence of god AND whether religion causes suffering.
anExpoMarker

Pro

In this debate I will prove that a god exists. (I will not be debating that the Christian God is the true God but that at least a god has to exist.)

To do this I will start out by bringing in Alvin Plantinga's Model Ontological Argument.

The premises of this argument are as follows:
#1: It is possible that God exists
#2: If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds
#3: If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds
#4: If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world
#5: If God exists in the actual world, then God exists

Now don't get to caught up on this just yet for I am going to explain it in more detail.

Now first lets define "possible world". When scientists and philosophers use the term "possible world" they mean "a hypothetical situation. In other words it is used to figure out if something is logical by asking if that something could exist in a world like our own.

Next let us define "God" in this argument. There are 3 ways to define a being in this argument:
Impossible - An entity that exists in no possible worlds (ex. A square circle)
Contingent - An entity that can exist in some possible worlds but not in others (ex. a unicorn)
Necessary - An entity that has to exist in all possible worlds (ex. numbers, absolute truths & shape definitions)

In this argument I will prove that God is a necessary entity that has to exist.
Let's start out with an easy example:
Take the number 2. No one created it. It just exists necessarily. It can't not exist. Another example is a shape like a square. A square must have four sides. It ceases to be a square if it only has 3 sides, and would be logically incoherent in any possible world.

To recap, a necessary entity is something that cannot be false or fail to exist in any possible world. (Therefore necessarily has to exist in all possible worlds.)

Now when I say that God has to exist as a necessary being, it is because He is a Maximally Great Being. A Maximally Great Being is defined as: A being that possesses all qualities that are better to have, (such as necessity) which are defined as "Great Making Properties." (ex. Love, Wisdom, Power) (A MGB would have to have all these qualities to their max.) Also a MGB can't have any "Lesser Making Properties" (ex. Imperfection, Corruption.) In saying this another Property a MGB would have to have is necessity, because being necessary is a property that is better to have.

Having defined God as Maximally great, He has to exist because anything that doesn't have to exist isn't maximally great. (ex. unicorn)

Now let us go back through the premises with us having "God" defined.

#1: It is possible that God (Maximally Great Being) exists
#2: If it is possible that God (MGB) exists, then God (MGB) exists in some possible worlds
#3: If God (MGB) exists in some possible worlds, then God (MGB) exists in all possible worlds
#4: If God (MGB) exists in all possible worlds, then God (MGB) exists in the actual world
#5: If God (MGB) exists in the actual world, then God (MGB) exists

To defeat this you would have to prove that it is impossible for a Maximally Great Being to exist.

I look forward to your rebuttal on those points.

As for your second point: "Wether religion causes suffering". I will answer this by saying that it is impossible for an idea to cause suffering. The thought of an idea causing suffering (such as a cute puppy being murdered) is subjective. I do believe that some PEOPLE who believe in a religion can cause suffering but that goes along with all the people outside of a religious circle that are very well capable to cause suffering as much as people who are religious.

And I look forward to your rebuttal on that point as well.

Thank you very much.
Debate Round No. 1
owen99999

Con

Some interesting points were made there but I'm afraid I spotted a major flaw in you premise which probably means you didn't have to type anything after Alvin Plantinga's model ontological argument (excluding the 'religion + suffering part of the debate)

Point number 1 is a valid point. It is possible god exists. Point 2 is where it starts to get a bit iffy. 'possible worlds' is a bit of an ambiguous term. It doesn't really mean anything. Are we talking about worlds as in our world e.g. our planet or our we talking about the universe? So Assuming this is a pointless statement I could cut it off there but lets just go by the premise there may be some truth in it. Then we get on to number three. This is where your argument really becomes pointless and illogical. Just because 'god exists in some possible worlds' it doesn't mean 'god exists in all possible worlds'.

Lets put it into a simple example so as to make it clear why it's fundamentally wrong and illogical.

"If the first harry potter book exists on my bookshelf and my friends bookshelf (some possible bookshelves), it exists on all bookshelves" This is the same as your statement but the first harry potter book isn't on say my dads shelf (which is a real possible bookshelf).

Or another example is that you can't say because some Irish people are ginger, all Irish people are ginger. That would be racist! (and not true for the sake of the argument).

This means your premise is wrong so the rest of your argument has no substance or worth. Just in case this hasn't persuaded you the argument doesn't work, there is one more way.

As your premise is (supposed to be) a logical series of steps to reach a conclusion, the variable 'god' can be replaced by anything. Now I could say it could be replaced by cheese for example. Ok that's all good. Cheese exists. But what if I say this:
#1: It is possible that God doesn't exist
#2: If it is possible that God doesn't exist, then God doesn't exist in some possible worlds
#3: If God doesn't exist in some possible worlds, then God doesn't exist in all possible worlds
#4: If God doesn't exist in all possible worlds, then God doesn't exist in the actual world
#5: If God doesn't exist in the actual world, then God doesn't exist

So it's the same thing. Therefore as my 5 steps and your 5 steps contradict even though they work by the same 'logic' therefore it isn't logic at all.
Also, they can't possibly work together because if mine proves god exists, step one of yours is wrong and therefore the whole thing is wrong. It works the other way round too.

To the point about religion causing suffering, it is most definitely possible for an idea to cause suffering. If i had the idea in my head I was going to have my feet boiled and cut off by some sadists, I would definitely be suffering in fear.
Religion isn't an idea though. It is an existing thing. It is a system by which there are roles within the system (believer, church pastor etc etc) and beliefs in the system and resources. These figures say a lot about religion causing suffering as there is nothing else linking the countries other than percentage of athiets:

The three poorest* countries in the world and the percentage of atheists in them.
1. Democratic Republic of Congo - 0% Atheist
2. Republic of Liberia - 0% Atheist
3. Republic of Zimbabwe - 0% Atheist

The three richest** countries in the world and the percentage of atheists in them
1. USA - 12%*** Atheist
2. Japan - Between 40% and 85% Atheist
3. China - 59% Atheist

See a pattern?

* 'poorest' refers to average yearly earnings and money in government but also takes into account hundreds of other things such as access to housing, food and clean water. You could describe it at 'most third-world'.
**Just like 'poorest', 'richest' takes into account these figures as well. 'Least third-world'
*** The figure is likely to be higher than this as many didn't answer. Also the reason USA is at the top is likely to have something to do with its size and population ratio.

Yes I agree there are some evil, evil people who are atheists such as Stalin. But it wasn't his atheism that drove him to be so evil whereas with the evil that comes from religion, it's often BECAUSE of the religion such as Bin Laden.

I said I thought religion was ONE OF THE BIGGEST causes of suffering in this world; not the only cause of suffering and also religion itself not religious people.

Thank you for reading I look forward to your response.

Owen Eastwood
anExpoMarker

Pro

Thank you for your response. I'd like to clear up a few things first. I think a lot of the confusion has come out of the misunderstanding of my definitions.

1. I defined how I used the term "possible world" in my previous argument. Im not going to completely reiterate it because you can go there and look at it, but I will try and restate it with different wording. A possible world is a HYPOTHETICAL situation that is used by philosophers to determine if an idea or object has the possibility to exist in a world like our own. In other words I would make up a hypothetical world that has the exact same laws of science, and rules of nature as Earth, to figure out if flying bunnies could somehow live and be able to continuously exist on Earth.
2. I defined God as a "Maximally Great Being". God being a MGB insists that he has to have all attributes that are great to have (like love, wisdom, power, and existing (because existing is an attribute that is better to have than to not have)), and he must have them to their maximal level. Therefore he has to be fully loving, fully wise, fully powerful, and fully existent. God being having fully existent to be God means that he is a necessary entity, which means he has to exist in all possible worlds, which means he exists in the actual world (being that the actual world is one of the possible worlds). This, by the way, is were your "Harry Potter book" analogy breaks down because a book is not a necessary entity therefore it does not have to exist in all possible worlds (along with your Irish ginger analogy).
3. The "Reverse Ontological Argument" (which is what you used there) isn't logically probable because it is logically impossible for a necessary entity (God) to not exist.

So you will find that not only did I take down your Reverse Ontological Argument in the first step (which you could not do to mine), I hopefully cleared some definitions up so you can come back at this. On this same note I haven't seen you try and disprove the existence of God. You have only tried to prove my argument wrong. I look forward to your response on this front. Thank you.

On the suffering debate:
I would like to ask you to prove to me that a religion is corporeal. Mind the fact that religious objects (such as idols, and symbolic trinkets) and religious people (i.e. Christians, Muslims etc.) are not religion. Religion of course being defined as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods". And if you would like to continue this debate about religion causing suffering, might I suggest that we move it to a different debate page? One specifically for a debate on does religion cause suffering, because this debate is on the existence of God and I would like to keep it on topic as much as possible. Thank you.

I really look forward to your rebuttal. Thank you very much.
Debate Round No. 2
owen99999

Con

You deinfed 'possible world' but it it still an ambiguos term I didn't really mean that you hadn't defined it I mean that your definition wasn't really clear.

I'm sorry but I'm really finding it really difficult to argue with you as I have no valid points to argue with. When I said :
"
#1: It is possible that God doesn't exist
#2: If it is possible that God doesn't exist, then God doesn't exist in some possible worlds
#3: If God doesn't exist in some possible worlds, then God doesn't exist in all possible worlds
#4: If God doesn't exist in all possible worlds, then God doesn't exist in the actual world
#5: If God doesn't exist in the actual world, then God doesn't exist
"
That was correct! Sorry but that premise is equally valid as yours and you just keep typing rubbish that DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING! My harry potter book analogy is valid because ok harry potter doesn't HAVE to exist in all possible worlds but nor does god!

Your point number three is the most astounding though. You can't just keep saying it's not possible that doesn't exist. That's what you're trying to prove not your premise!
My 5 points are as valid as yours and work THE EXACT SAME WAY so you just can't say that god must exist and expect to win like that...

Another thing is that you say I haven't tried to disprove the existence of god. I never said I was going to. I don't believe at current you can prove that god doesn't exist but you can't prove he does exist either.

I don't believe religion is corporeal eg it is not made of matter so I don't know why i would try and prove that... I believe it exists as a thing with different sections. And I'm involved in 3 debates at the moment so I would rather keep them both here. The belief in god doesn't cause suffering itself eg it's not cause --> effect. It's a more complex series where belief in god cause people to act in ways which cause suffering like 9/11 for example. It's more like:
cause --> effect --> cause --> effect
I don't see any reason why we should be talking about religion being a thing. Religion causing suffering is the point.
I suggest you watch this video which might explain what I mean:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbef07aQtB8

Lastly I would like to just re iterate that this whole MGB thing is ridiculous because point three of your first premist isn't correct. Just because god exists in a hypothetical or some hypothetical worlds doesn't mean he exists in all hypothetical worlds.

I hope I haven't come across as rude I just find it quite frustrating typing all this I much prefer face to face debates and I only had half an hour to type this one so sorry if it's abit breif,
Thank you I look forward to your responce.
anExpoMarker

Pro

A term cannot be ambiguous if I clearly define how it is being used in my argument (meaning it can't have any other meaning in my argument except for the definition I gave to it).

Your Reverse argument of my own is not logically coherent because if we define God as a necessary entity (which I have proved over and over that he is) than it is impossible for him not to exist.

Me proving that it is impossible for God not to exist is proving that all my premises are true. I have already disproved why your 5 points don't work. I suggest you look at my definition of God again.

I would suggest you watch this video of the Argument being drawn out more.

Well if you can't prove that God does not exist then you've forfeited this debate being that that is what "Con" is supposed to be doing.

Also, the truth of God being a MGB isn't based upon the premises but based upon the definition of God itself.

About the debate on Religion and Suffering:
I have read your response and watched that video and I do have a rebuttal for it but I think there is already enough for people to think about on this page. Also this page was created for the debate "The Existence of God" and not for "Religion Causes Suffering" and I would like to keep this debate on topic. Perhaps after this debate you could challenge me with a debate specifically on religion causing suffering. I am more than willing to debate that topic more thoroughly.

Finally, thank you for clarifying yourself. I was detecting some frustration in your last post. No worries.
Thank you. I look forward to your rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 3
owen99999

Con

Working through your argument from the top to the bottom.

When I say ambiguous, I mean the term 'possible worlds' not your definition. I totally agree that your definition had one meaning and was clear, but the term its self has many definitions like the word 'set' for example can mean a pre defined thing (set a date) or to put down an object (set on a table). Even if i defined what i was meaning the word set was in the argument, the word itself would still be ambiguous.

I still think me reverse argument is logical and in your second paragraph you are basically saying
Your argument is wrong.
Why?
Because my argument says it's wrong.
But I'm saying your argument's wrong!
Yeah well... i proved god exists!
But no im saying you didn't... ^facepalm^ ;)

I watched the whole video and I have to say the guy is a bit full of himself and kind of hides from the rebuttals he can't explain saying he'll 'talk about them in another video'. You haven't disproved why all 5 points don't work; you tried to argue against them as a system of five and failed. HOWEVER.

If you are saying that I can't use the LACK of existence of god in the ontological argument because it is not a MGB, then I propose to you this:

This is the spaghetti monster --> ~~~~~~
He is awesome. He engulfs the whole of space apart from the stars and planets and his body is super heat resistant. NOTHING CAN DESTROY HIM! Also he's pretty damn massive and is growing at the same rate as space.
He is so loving and everyone loves him (because he provides all the planets with free spaghetti and all the other properties of a MGB.

Stick him into your 5 points and BOOM!
-He is a maximally great being
-The logic is the same

I don't believe there is proof that god does or doesn't exist. I believe there is enough strong evidence he doesn't exist and none that he does enough that the only logical conclusion that you can make is that god doesn't exist.

I may start another argument after but might not depends if im busy or not. You have to be fair though the video does say something...

thanks and I look forward to your response.
anExpoMarker

Pro

I will do the same (top to bottom)

Yes, I do agree that some terms can be ambiguous in a conversation where they aren't exactly defined, but that is not the case here. I will use your analogy to disprove you. Let me make a hypothetical situation. Let's say that there is a tennis match and a pair of salt and pepper shakers right next to each other. Yes, the word set can be ambiguous, like if I said, "That is a set." You would have no way of knowing if I were talking about tennis or the pair of salt and pepper shakers unless you saw what I was pointing at. (For the sake of the argument let's say you can't see what I'm pointing at.) Now if before I say "That is a set" I define how I am going to use the word "set" as being a pair of something then you know I am talking directly about the salt and pepper shakers and not the tennis match. Therefore in looking at the context of my argument you cannot say that a term I am using is ambiguous because I have clearly defined how I am using it in my argument. With that being said, when I use the term "possible world" look to my definition to see how I am using it in the argument.

Your second paragraph barely makes any sense. You cannot just SAY I am wrong and expect people to believe you. You have to prove I am wrong with logic and on that front you have failed. I, however, have proven you wrong with logic and reasoning. That is how I come to the conclusions that you are wrong. Not just because I say it.

I can possibly see where you might think that he sounds full of himself but that does not prove him wrong. Not does him having to take time to make another video prove him wrong. I, in fact, have proven your 5 steps wrong in the very logic that since your first step does not work therefore none of your steps work.

Now set aside the fact that I don't believe in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if he has all the qualities that would make him a MGB then he would be God (because that is how God is defined). So if the FSM is a MGB (i.e. God) then yes those terms would work, hence the logical conclusion (which you yourself have also come to when you said "Stick him into your 5 points and BOOM!
-He is a maximally great being
-The logic is the same") God does exist. (Again, I am not here to refute the Church of the FSM. I am here to prove the existence of a God with logic and reasoning.)

To add: "Pastafarianism is a real religion" http://www.venganza.org...
People do think The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a real God.

As for the video you posted to me about religion and suffering. The person who made the video is trying to simplify something that has to many variables. And you want to talk about people who seem "full of himself"? The person who made the video seems to think that Atheists are the reason that economies grow and stay stimulated. You cannot forget all of the other variables that go into making a third world country (such as war, genocide, infertile soil, no natural resources, and many others.) if you wanted to go so far as to say that religion causes third world countries then why not say it's because of dictatorships and islam? they are very prominent in those countries as well. They could be causing it. With having said that, the video is poorly made. You can't simplify something like that with so many variables.

Thank you. I look forward to your closing argument.
Debate Round No. 4
owen99999

Con

(working from top to bottom)

I think we agree on this point I'm just not coming across clearly. The term possible worlds is an ambiguous term but you defined it in this debate which is correct and fine. I just meant other people who have talked about the model ontological argument outside of our debate so I was just making the point that it can be misinterpreted by some people. We do agree trust me!

My second paragraph wasn't me speaking; it was me suggesting what you said was you trying to prove I was wrong by saying your argument was right. I believe that your argument was about as valid as this guys argument:

Just to be clear though, I'll add in who's saying what in my statement from my previous post to make it clearer:

anExpoMarker:Your argument is wrong.
owen99999:Why?
anExpoMarker:Because my argument says it's wrong.
owen99999:But I'm saying your argument's wrong!
anExpoMarker:Yeah well... i proved god exists!
owen99999:But no im saying you didn't... ^facepalm^ ;)

This is not what I think you actually said but what what you said was equivalently logical to.

I really promise you that you haven't proven my 5 steps wrong. You didn't even go into each on in detail.

I also really promise (I have it on good authority) that the church of the flying spaghetti monster is actually a wind up religion. However when I said the flying spaghetti monster, I was talking about a different one that can be seen by humans (remember it produces spaghetti over all the planets for everyone!). Remember; being able to be seen by humans does not mean that it doesn't fit into the categories of a MGB. This means that if the model ontological argument followed any sort of actual logic as I already demonstrated but this demonstration fits the rules and as we can all confirm there is not a visible spaghetti monster (or pasta or cabbage) in the sky, the model ontological argument must be wrong.

I agree the video is poorly made; I assure you I could do better! That being said; there are some clear facts in the video that i have checked my self such as :
"If all atheists left america, 10% percent of the population would leave, but less than 0.25% of it's prisoners" which really says something. I think all the facts in the video are actually true (don't worry I don't just believe things I see online I research them to confirm statistics etc) they are just presented badly.

I hope we both leave having learnt something from this argument; I certainly think I did. I would like to thank you for being a great opponent and making me realise that sometimes pleasure and frustration at the internet come in pairs.
I look forward to your closing argument and good luck in the votes. No matter who wins I think we BOTH made valid points :)

Owen

**NOTE TO ALL VOTERS**
Please be fair when voting and don't necessarily base your votes upon your religious or non religious beliefs but the points made IN THIS DEBATE. Also please read the whole thing thoroughly before deciding. I'm sure anExpoMarker will agree with me on these points. Thank you.
anExpoMarker

Pro

With your explanation of why you kept bringing up that "possible worlds" was ambiguous I do agree with you, but you saying that isn't relevant in this argument being that I have defined it as Alvin Plantinga would.

I'm not sure who "this guy" is. It seems like you meant to put a video or something there so just post it in the comments and I will take a look at it.

By listing the conversation like that you are simplifying it too much. There was much more that I said. I used logic and reasoning to, not only prove that their is a God, but prove your argument wrong.

The way model logic and the argument works is if you can prove the first step wrong then the rest of the argument is wrong. In saying that I didn't need to go in depth into why each step was wrong because I proved the first step wrong.

I am aware of how it started but that doesn't mean that people don't devoutly believe it now. And I didn't deny you what you were talking about but I further explained it. Being that God is defined as a MGB then if you want to call it a flying spaghetti monster and not God then by all means call him that. (And don't forget that something that is not seen does not mean that it isn't there (i.e. Oxygen)) But that just proves what I said in my first statement. "In this debate I will prove that a god exists. (I will not be debating that the Christian God is the true God but that at least a god has to exist.)"

And just because there are a lot of religious people are in jail does not mean they didn't find religion when they got in there. Again they are trying to simplify something that needs to be more in depth to have a weightier argument.

I really would like to thank my opponent for the challenge. This is my first but not last debate on here and I am very excited for the debates to come in the future. Again I would like to thank my opponent and I wish him well on his other endeavors.

I do agree that since this is a debate website and not a religious organization that the voters base their votes on the criteria asked about in the voting process and not their personal beliefs. Thank you to all who comment and vote. I hope you enjoyed watching this debate progress as much as I did.
Debate Round No. 5
42 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ellielynch21 4 years ago
ellielynch21
look all around you. isn't it all just so... invigorating? how could you need an explanation? earth in and of itself is mysterious! there can't be a logical explanation! its all around you! the beauty of the stars and nature and rain and sunshine. if you need a logical explanation for something so irregular and so extreme, then good luck. because it will be hard to find. take a chance! what have you got to lose in believing in something in which you will only gain? all around you will see things like you've never seen before and get a whole new perspective! why do you refuse to believe that someone so big and so significant can love you so profoundly and so extremely! God loves you, whether you love Him or not. and before he even created this earth he knew your deepest secrets and greatest accomplishments because he created them himself. He cares for you more than you care for yourself. Earth, and the universe, and this entire existence is so hard to comprehend and so hard to put into perspective, there just can't be a simple answer for such a complex thing
Posted by anExpoMarker 4 years ago
anExpoMarker
@owen99999

First of all the way you implied the Q&A you implied that you are the one not being a decent person (which I am sure you didn't mean). You seemed to misunderstand me because I wasn't trying to be indecent, I am sorry you took it that way. I understand we all [humankind] have many things we still need to learn. I think it is important for all who debate to keep an open mind to understand what we might not at the time. I implore you to keep up your debating and keep looking for ways to understand what I have said because I know for a fact that you don't. But do it with an open mind that you might find out that God does exist despite what you expect and hope to find. I did enjoy debating with you but I fear that if we keep on commenting that this will just end up becoming a conversation in which we just hurl insults at each other. I will debate you again on the same topic or some other topic related to this. I do intend to look at you link with hopes that we will someday be able to talk about this subject more. Thank you.
Posted by owen99999 4 years ago
owen99999
@anExpoMarker

I won and you lost.
Q: Why?
A: Because you were wrong.
Q: Will you be a decent person and accept that?
A: No.
Q: Why?
A1: Because you are a stupid, illogical, idiot who can't even think for himself.
A2: Because you know you're wrong, but are scared of admitting it.
A3: Both of the above.

Now I like to try and debate with people who actually might have some knowledge about the subject. Because of this I am not answering anything you say however much it winds me up and judging by your character; I'm sure you'll be happy to have the last word! When you're a bit cleverer and have actually learned something, we can debate but not until.

P.S. You might like these:
http://consc.net...
Posted by anExpoMarker 4 years ago
anExpoMarker
@owen99999 If you understood by argument you would see that you in fact did not disprove me. Maybe wait until you are more experienced and can understand the connections between what I have said. I know you misunderstood me and still misunderstand me.

@wiploc I will set it up here as soon as I can
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
AnExpoMarker wrote:
: @wiploc if you would like to debate me I would be very willing to accept.

If you set it up, you get to go first and be Pro, and I'll get to respond to your case. If I set it up, I have to go first, which doesn't make sense.

If you set it up naming me as your opponent, then nobody else can accept ahead of me.

Let's have three rounds. I hate reading five round debates, so I don't want to inflict them on other people. Generally, nothing new happens after the third round anyway.

Kalam, Objective morality, ontology, I'm game for any or all of them. My personal preference is to do one at a time so nothing gets lost and the issue really gets resolved, but if you want to do more than one at a time, I'm still game.
Posted by owen99999 4 years ago
owen99999
@anExpoMarker

I would have thought as someone who seems to think they know a lot about philosiphy, would realise that as you can't prove a direct negative, it is down to you to prove that god DOES exist. My job was to debunk your proof; which I did. In a debate you don't HAVE to prove something; if you can prove it then do, if not you can fairly win an argument by showing overwhelming evidence for it, or point out any evidence/"proof" for the opposition is wrong.

Sorry but the model ontological argument DOESN'T WORK. My unicorn and VISIBLE spaghetti examples demostrated why; it just can't be true... you can continue to believe god exists if you want; maybe you can even try and find a working model but this one DOESN'T WORK.

When I was less experienced, I also used to try and PROVE for/against god's existence but after relentless studying I have realised you just simply can't. What you can do however is look at the resultant conclusion the evidence suggests and from that; come to a logical stand point.
Posted by anExpoMarker 4 years ago
anExpoMarker
@owen99999 I'm not being a sore loser. I am being realistic. You didn't understand what I kept saying and you prove that by saying "...yet you still insist your right." You never disproved the existence of God and therefore I should have won but along with you, others didn't understand the argument as well. I'm okay with that. If you would like to debate the existence of god with a different argument then challenge me.
Posted by owen99999 4 years ago
owen99999
@anExpoMarker

Wow we're on a debating site you're gunna lose occasionally! Don't be a sour loser, I won; deal with it! It didn't fly over my head I clearly pointed out that it just doesn't work and yet you still insist that you're right! Religion in a nutshell.

@Everyone else
I'm not commenting on this debate any more I haven't got the time so don't bother commenting anymore as I can't reply.
Posted by anExpoMarker 4 years ago
anExpoMarker
I agree with @XDebatorX. It seems that the ontological argument just flew over his head. But I just wanted to try it out. I do love the other arguments you mention and I hope to try them out soon. @wiploc if you would like to debate me I would be very willing to accept.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
XdebatorX wrote:
: You should have used the Kalam cosmological and Objective moral values arguments because those are
: more easier to understand. Watch some of William Lane Craig's debates, he never uses the Ontological
: argument but instead uses the cosmological and objective morality. I don't agree with his crucifiction of
: jesus since I am a Muslim however but his arguments for God are so strong...

I think they are weak. I'll debate you on any of those arguments.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
owen99999anExpoMarkerTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter VB...
Vote Placed by DelilahRawr 4 years ago
DelilahRawr
owen99999anExpoMarkerTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: e.e
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
owen99999anExpoMarkerTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by johnnyboy54 4 years ago
johnnyboy54
owen99999anExpoMarkerTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Owen committed a number of fallacies, namely strawmaning with the flying spaghetti monster. He also tried to prove that religion causes suffering based on correlations. Correlation does not prove causation and he failed to prove anything here. I thought arguments were equal.