The Instigator
Dr_Harvey
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
brittwaller
Con (against)
Winning
56 Points

The most important question about God is not whether he exists but whether he cares

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/4/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,050 times Debate No: 4901
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (30)
Votes (15)

 

Dr_Harvey

Pro

I have found so often when the existence of God is challenged the most frequent objection to his existence is that there is suffering in the world, or a close relative died suddenly and therefore God cannot exist because if He did he wouldn't allow this suffering to continue.

What does is matter to an atheist if God exists but has no interaction here on earth? Or if God exists and has no capability to intervene on mankinds behalf? It is the same as whether or not Pluto exists. It may matter to some people but at the end of the day, whether or not Pluto exists has no effect whatsoever on my life. Let the debate begin!
brittwaller

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for posting this debate. Let's have a good one and good luck.

I negate: "The most important question about God is not whether he exists but whether he cares"

Once again, existence precedes all. By changing the question, as my opponent would have you do, existence is already assumed. If there is no god but you spend a lot of time wondering whether it cares or not, you are wasting a lot of time. It is only IF god does exist that any other characteristic or quality comes into play; that's a big "IF," and it follows logically that the question of existence should be answered first. I'm not worried about whether or not my long lost cousin Sally cares about me, because I'm not sure that she even exists. I'm not worried about Man-Bear/Pig attacking me in my sleep, because I know that it doesn't exist.

I say again: existence precedes all.

Back to you

Britt
Debate Round No. 1
Dr_Harvey

Pro

Dr_Harvey forfeited this round.
brittwaller

Con

I extend all arguments from Round 1.

"What would you do if I sang out of tune...
Would you stand up and walk out on me?
Lend me your ears and I'll sing you a song
And I'll try not to sing out of key..."
Debate Round No. 2
Dr_Harvey

Pro

Dr_Harvey forfeited this round.
brittwaller

Con

Extend all arguments. Vote CON. I seem to have one detractor in the comments section who feels that I have "confused" the terms of the debate. However, my opponent did not bring this out, even if it were true, and forfeited his remaining rounds (although he was nice enough to grace us with a question aimed at me in the comments section while he was busy forfeiting.)

Vote CON

"have a nice day and come again!"

Britt
Debate Round No. 3
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
What they said.
Posted by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
Jblake said it best:

Pro forfeited all but the opening rounds. No other explanation is necessary.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Pro forfeited all but the opening rounds. No other explanation is necessary.
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
"Again incorrect. It is your possessions not mine. It is never ours together. It can never be my garbage or treasure until it is in my possession. At which point it would neither be your treasure or garbage either."

It does not need to be in my possession, nor your possession, in order to be cherished and considered worthwhile - in which case what you consider treasure, may not be treasure at all to me. It seems you want to put a certain measure of objectivity where none exists. The term treasure denotes value, but the object to which the term is ascribed is subjective.

"The very fact the term TREASURE is applied denotes it has value."

Yes, but by whom is it ascribed? I call what is precious to me treasure (whether in my possession or otherwise). Even a person can be considered treasure. I very much see Jesus as treasure - do you?

"I am under no obligation to. You may like to think I was arguing more than your use of terms, but I was not. Perhaps you need the exercise and a walk will be good for you. ;)"

Haha, well then if you were merely discussing terms I see no fruit in continuing. Perhaps I do need a good walk. Thanks for the discussion Puck, we may disagree, but I still value such dialogue.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
"Incorrect. Value in terms of the mathematics employed is "quantity; number represented by a figure, symbol, or the like" (dictionary.com). Therefore 1 is of lesser value than 2 and three for it represents a lesser quantity. The problem shows how precedence does not address value."

3-2=1 Three is of greater value than two...Using a mathematical analogy to describe this epistemological stance is pointless.

"Precedence as a value for importance is error laden because it insists that your father is inherently more important than you, and his father, and his fathers father, down to the steaming pile of boiling protoplasm that just slipped off the life-giving rock after the primordial first rain. Don't ever remarry either, you would hate to have to tell your second wife she is inherently less important than your first."

The error is application outside of its designation. The terms of the debate were specific i.e. the resolution.

"And no, you did not address the larger point. If the typically worthwhile gold inscribed coins are of no value to ME, why would I seek out the rock formation that supposedly reveals their hiding?"

I am under no obligation to. You may like to think I was arguing more than your use of terms, but I was not. Perhaps you need the exercise and a walk will be good for you. ;)
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
"False, while the term treasure inherently denotes value, the object typified as treasure has no such inherent value but is rather ascribed value by a person. Therefore the value of the object considered treasure is largely subjective. So what is typified as treasure by many (e.g. gold, silver, jewels and pearls) may be of no inherent value to someone else."

Contradiction. It is valuable but has no value? I think not. The very fact the term TREASURE is applied denotes it has value. If it has no value then it is not treasure. It is as simple as that.

"In normal conversations in which one person addresses another, understanding is typically requisite. While your comments still exist and the point may still have been made, the intended purpose was not fulfilled. That is, not to just make a point that I was wrong, but have it understood that I was wrong."

Again, I have no interest in any level of your understanding. Whether you do or not is of no concern to me.

"You quoted me as saying that the argument was over
importance not precedence. So you brought yourself into the conversation"

Did you read the proceeding text that addressed nothing of that first sentence? A qoute is not an argument.

"One must STATE how he/she is measuring importance. Using terms like "it is more importance because it precedes" or "we can measure importance by looking at precedence." The author never made a connection between precedence and importance and has thus consigned himself to a mere red herring argument. You assumed the authors intent. That's the fact."

Check the resolution more carefully.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
“.. it's really all about perspective.”

Value maybe, application to the term treasure however is not. You concede that treasure has value then defend that treasure does not have value. It is not treasure if it has no value, the perspective is irrelevant. By using the term treasure, you have already foreclosed that it has a value.

“Under definition two the same scenario is applicable – for the value of things is subjective. Under definition 3 the example they give serves well. For the books I treasure you may view as worthless – or simply not treasure at all.”

To treasure something is not the same as X is treasure. Value again maybe subjective, use of the term treasure however presupposes a value.

“The things I regard or treat as precious (definition 5), most likely are not identical to the things you regard or treat as precious – in which what is treasure to me is not treasure to you at all. So the proverb stands "one man's garbage is another man's treasure."

Again incorrect. It is your possessions not mine. It is never ours together. It can never be my garbage or treasure until it is in my possession. At which point it would neither be your treasure or garbage either.
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
"1 is wholly necessary to complete any form of the equation, therefore equitable in value to 2 and higher than 3 as 3 is simply the conclusion to the equation not a requisite of its formation."
Incorrect. Value in terms of the mathematics employed is "quantity; number represented by a figure, symbol, or the like" (dictionary.com). Therefore 1 is of lesser value than 2 and three for it represents a lesser quantity. The problem shows how precedence does not address value.

Precedence as a value for importance is error laden because it insists that your father is inherently more important than you, and his father, and his fathers father, down to the steaming pile of boiling protoplasm that just slipped off the life-giving rock after the primordial first rain. Don't ever remarry either, you would hate to have to tell your second wife she is inherently less important than your first.

And no, you did not address the larger point. If the typically worthwhile gold inscribed coins are of no value to ME, why would I seek out the rock formation that supposedly reveals their hiding?
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
"However treasure is innately valuable. Hence being a treasure. Your term. Live with it. As already stated if it is of no value it is not treasure and cannot be labeled as such."

False, while the term treasure inherently denotes value, the object typified as treasure has no such inherent value but is rather ascribed value by a person. Therefore the value of the object considered treasure is largely subjective. So what is typified as treasure by many (e.g. gold, silver, jewels and pearls) may be of no inherent value to someone else.

"Why would I care to convince you? You were wrong with or without realization of that fact. You understanding of that is not a concern of mine."

Are you addressing me or not(since you made it very clear you were)? In normal conversations in which one person addresses another, understanding is typically requisite. While your comments still exist and the point may still have been made, the intended purpose was not fulfilled. That is, not to just make a point that I was wrong, but have it understood that I was wrong.

"Tsk Tsk. I addressed YOU. I made that very clear. Your response addressed ME. Using points towards an argument "I" never made is a STRAW MAN."

You quoted me as saying that the argument was over importance not precedence. So you brought yourself into the conversation.

"It is an argument from the resolution. The resolution states "important" hence importance as a value."

One must STATE how he/she is measuring importance. Using terms like "it is more importance because it precedes" or "we can measure importance by looking at precedence." The author never made a connection between precedence and importance and has thus consigned himself to a mere red herring argument. You assumed the authors intent. That's the fact.
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
"It is treasure hence valuable which is a definitional requirement. If an object is not valuable then it is not treasure AND the term treasure cannot be used. 'Worthless treasure' is a contradiction. There was no "larger point" to my original post. I have only dealt with your flawed analogy in use of terms."

Since you are adamant about the apparent contradiction with worthless treasure, let me make it clear.
Dictionary.com
1. Wealth or riches stored or accumulated esp. in the form of precious metals, money, jewels, or plate.
2. Wealth, rich materials, or valuable things.
3. Any thing or person greatly valued or highly prized: This book was his chief treasure.
5. To regard or treat as precious; cherish.

You state categorically that treasure cannot simultaneously be treasure and garbage at the same time. Let me defend the proverb by each definition listed. A man is holding his suitcase which contains a million US dollars inside while he takes a ship to nevereverland. He considers it to be his treasure. The ship crashes on the shore of an indigenously inhabited island. The people there get hold of this suitcase and are disappointed with its contents because, to them, it is mere garbage – they immediately discard the garbage as the captive man screams in dismay. To say treasure cannot be garbage simultaneously is to insert yourself as the objective standard for what treasure is – it's really all about perspective. Under definition two the same scenario is applicable – for the value of things is subjective. Under definition 3 the example they give serves well. For the books I treasure you may view as worthless – or simply not treasure at all. The things I regard or treat as precious (definition 5), most likely are not identical to the things you regard or treat as precious – in which what is treasure to me is not treasure to you at all. So the proverb stands "one man's garbage is another man's treasure."
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Dr_HarveybrittwallerTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
Dr_HarveybrittwallerTied
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 
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
Dr_HarveybrittwallerTied
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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Dr_HarveybrittwallerTied
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 
Vote Placed by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
Dr_HarveybrittwallerTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
Dr_HarveybrittwallerTied
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 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
Dr_HarveybrittwallerTied
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 yarnedia 8 years ago
yarnedia
Dr_HarveybrittwallerTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Dr_Harvey 8 years ago
Dr_Harvey
Dr_HarveybrittwallerTied
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 AEQUITAS 8 years ago
AEQUITAS
Dr_HarveybrittwallerTied
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:03