The Instigator
godorabsurdity
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Theunkown
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Theism (Christianity) vs Athiesm

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 601 times Debate No: 78677
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

godorabsurdity

Pro

My position is that God created the world more or less as we know it and everything in it, approximately 6000 years ago. It is my observation that everything we see in nature shows this, and also - very doubt in Creation proves that God exists.

An agreement to debate proves that God exists. A debate presupposes truth. Truth presupposes God. You cannot get truth from an evolved meat machine. Open a shaken up can of Coke and a can of Sprite. The winner of this debate is the drink that produces the most fizz. What"s the difference between that and our debate, if there is no god? Your thoughts are simply brain fizz. How do you get truth from that? So I would first ask - how do you get truth without God? Until you answer that question, you're borrowing from my worldview, which states that God exists.

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." Psalm 14:1-7 (KJV)

I'm sure you will answer my question, unlike my last debatee...
Theunkown

Con

I assume First round is acceptance. Reminder that Burden of Proof is on Pro to show that God exists, and specifically that the Christian God exists.

I am not paticularly offended by the Bible quote given by Pro in round 1 but since it is an ad hominem, voters must keep that in mind when voting conduct.
Debate Round No. 1
godorabsurdity

Pro

I'll repeat then, shall I.

An agreement to debate proves that God exists. A debate presupposes truth. Truth presupposes God. You cannot get truth from an evolved meat machine. Open a shaken up can of Coke and a can of Sprite. The winner of this debate is the drink that produces the most fizz. What"s the difference between that and our debate, if there is no god? Your thoughts are simply brain fizz. How do you get truth from that? So I would first ask - how do you get truth without God? Until you answer that question, you're borrowing from my worldview, which states that God exists. You cannot even have truth without God - so he exists.

So answer these:

1) What is truth in your worldview?
2) Could you be wrong about everything you think you know? If not - what's one thing you know and how do you know it.

You took the Bible verse very sensitively. I quoted a verse, I didn't accuse you of being a fool.
Theunkown

Con

Quotes from Pro are Italicized and Underlined

My position is that God created the world more or less as we know it and everything in it, approximately 6000 years ago.


That is a very tough position to defend. Even most religious people of the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) agree that the world has existed for more than 6,000 years.


It is my observation that everything we see in nature shows this

Firstly, show me this observation and connect it to biblical creation


and also - very doubt in Creation proves that God exists.

I don't see the logic here, in accordnance with Pro's line of reasoning, I could also say that since there is also doubt that the earth is billions of years old (as evidenced by Pro) the Earth is therefore billions of years old.

Before getting to Pro's main argument, I shall define Presuppose for the readers:

Presuppose - 1.
to suppose or assume beforehand; take for granted in advance.
2.(of a thing, condition, or state of affairs) to require or imply as anantecedent condition:
An effect presupposes a cause.

The 2nd definition fits this context more.


An agreement to debate proves that God exists.

Me agreeing to debate proves God's existence? How?


A debate presupposes truth

I assume you mean that you may arrive at a true fact as a result of debating, ok, no problems there.

Truth presupposes God.

Truth is required to make god? Pro needs to clarify what he says here, maybe he means that the only truth that can be arived at in this debate is that God exists, which I stronly disagree.


You cannot get truth from an evolved meat machine.

I assume that evolved meat machine means us, humans. I don't see how we cannot get truth, sure you may downplay our abilities by callign us 'meat machines' but the extent to which our brains are evolved, its outstanding. We can arive at truths, the truths that have helped our civlization grow to where it is right now.

Open a shaken up can of Coke and a can of Sprite. The winner of this debate is the drink that produces the most fizz. What"s the difference between that and our debate, if there is no god? Your thoughts are simply brain fizz. How do you get truth from that?

Of course we can get truth by using our brains to interpret the natural world, that's how we have advanced our civilization so much.


So I would first ask - how do you get truth without God?

Look at the evidence presented to you, look at the raw facts and see it for what they are in the most objective manner as humanely possible. Interpret the facts and form a conclusion.

Also, try to falsify the truth as much as possible and if you still cannot falsify it plus there is plenty of evidence to support it, then it is a truth. That's deductive reasoning, something unique to humans. It forms the basis of the scientific method, which has worked excellently for us so far.


You cannot even have truth without God - so he exists.

1+1 = 2, that is a truth, whether the world was formed supernaturally (by God) or naturally(not by God).


1) What is truth in your worldview?

For something to be considered true, it must undergo rigourous examination of the scientific method (which is described above). If passes, then it is a truth, else it can be discarded as a false hypothesis or false fact. The hypothesis that God exists has not passed that examination thus far and it is doubtful that it ever will.

2) Could you be wrong about everything you think you know? If not - what's one thing you know and how do you know it.

I could be wrong about nothing I know, some things I know or everything I think I know, maybe this whole life is just a dream. Who knows? It cannot be proven or falsified (just like the God hypothesis). The same of course, applies to you, maybe everything you know could be wrong.


You took the Bible verse very sensitively. I quoted a verse, I didn't accuse you of being a fool.

I already said that I was not offended about the Bible verse. It was obviously inserted to discredit atheists because it outright calls them fools. It is by definition an ad hominem attack (bible quote or not, you used it) and therefore the voters must take that into account when voting conduct.


Conclusion:

Althogh I appreciate Pro for bringing up Philosophical questions, the readers still need to bring up proof that the Christian god exists and the Bible is accurate (proving that the Earth is 6000 years old for starters) and whatever else needed to prove that Christianity is the right religion.

Following the principles of the scientific method, if Pro gives un-refutable evidence that the Christian God exists and the Bible is correct, I shall become a Christian. If Pro fails to do so, well I am not asking him or the readers to become Atheist, that's an individual choice, but I will remain as one.
Who am I kidding? Nobody is going to become Christian or Atheist by reading or participating in such debates despite whatever evidence is brought up.


Anyway, I await Pro's evidence to fulfil Burden of Proof.


Sources

[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 2
godorabsurdity

Pro

I asked: “Could you be wrong about everything you think you know? If not - what's one thing you know and how do you know it."


You answered: “I could be wrong about nothing I know, some things I know or everything I think I know, maybe this whole life is just a dream. Who knows?”


If I told you, “I am 6 feet tall - but I could be wrong.” Do I know my height? No, because I could be wrong. If I told you, “The speed limit outside is 60kph/mph but I could be wrong.” I don't know it, because I could be wrong. I could be right, sure, but that doesn't mean I am. I wouldn’t KNOW it.


With that in mind - you’ve just said you could be wrong about everything you think you know – “I could be wrong about… or everything I think I know.


It then follows that you know nothing, just like my height and the speed limit.


However the very next thing you say is It cannot be proven or falsified (just like the God hypothesis).”


Do you know that? So you do know something now. Make up your mind.


And if you can know nothing, how do you know this: “The same of course, applies to you, maybe everything you know could be wrong. "If you can’t know anything, how do you know what I can know?!


“1+1 = 2, that is a truth, whether the world was formed supernaturally (by God) or naturally(not by God).”


Huh? You conceded that you can’t know anything, but now you're saying you know that 1+1 equals 2... You really need to clarify what you know or not…


-


I asked: “…how do you get truth without God?”


You answered: “Look at the evidence presented to you, look at the raw facts and see it for what they are in the most objective manner as humanely possible. Interpret the facts and form a conclusion. Also, try to falsify the truth as much as possible and if you still cannot falsify it plus there is plenty of evidence to support it, then it is a truth. That's deductive reasoning, something unique to humans. It forms the basis of the scientific method, which has worked excellently for us so far." “Although I appreciate Pro for bringing up Philosophical questions, the readers still need to bring up proof that the Christian god exists and the Bible is accurate…”


You said you can’t know anything, and now you're talking about proof. Proof presupposes truth. But you said you can't know what's true. That’s a very big problem.


-


As for me - I know that God exists because of His divine revelation. And you can't tell me there's a problem with that if you know nothing.

Theunkown

Con

you’ve just said you could be wrong about everything you think you know – “I could be wrong about… or everything I think I know.”
It then follows that you know nothing, just like my height and the speed limit.


The logic used here is very flawed. According to Pro's logic, since I said that I could be wrong about nothing, I therefore know everything. Isn't that the same logic pro used in his point?

Pro's entire argument assumes a very false premise/assumption. That is, since someone could be wrong about something that is known, that person cannot know it. This is a very faulty line of reasoning.
Nobody truly knows anything for 100% certain unless it has something to do with definitions, for example everybody knows for 100% that Homosexual males are not attracted to females. But that fact is only 100% because of the definitions of words. Other than that, nothing can be known for a 100%.

There is a small chance that my username is not 'Theunkown' and I have been hallucinating all this time. But the chance of that (based on evidence of me and friends seeing this account) make me near certain that this account and the username is accurate. Though not 100%, just 99.99999.....%, but the probablity that my username is not 'Theunkown' is soo small that I might as well spend my time on this website knowing for sure that my username is 'Theunkown'.

Let me give another example. If I see a fork, but I forget to put on my glasses and assume it is a spoon and think it is a spoon, then it I have the specific knowledge that the object in front of me is a spoon. It may be objectively false knowledge based off of faulty observations, but it is still knowledge because I know for 99.99999% certainity that it is a spoon but to me, subjectively, it is truth and knowledge. But then if I put my glasses on and find out it was a fork after all, I still know what the object in front of me (just like before) but I categorize it differently.

The only difference between knowing something that could be false and knowing something that could be true is the Objective truth of the knowledge, not the PRESENCE of knowledge. This is a key point that my opponent is missing in the philosophical component in this debate.


Humans work in estimations, humans won't be bothered about the small percentage of chance that something that they 'know' is false. Which is why religious fundamentalists hardly convert to other religions or become irreligious.
If sufficient evidence is given to make the probability of God existing high enough, I will live my life as if he exists. If no such evidence is provided, then there is no reason to live as if a god does exist and I live as normal.

However the very next thing you say is “It cannot be proven or falsified (just like the God hypothesis).”

Do you know that? So you do know something now. Make up your mind.
And if you can know nothing, how do you know this: “The same of course, applies to you, maybe everything you know could be wrong. "If you can’t know anything, how do you know what I can know?!

“1+1 = 2, that is a truth, whether the world was formed supernaturally (by God) or naturally(not by God).”

Huh? You conceded that you can’t know anything, but now you're saying you know that 1+1 equals 2... You really need to clarify what you know or not…


All of these rebuttals by Pro is assuming that I don't know something, which I have shown to be an incorrect premise to work on. Therefore lets move on.


You said you can’t know anything, and now you're talking about proof. Proof presupposes truth. But you said you can't know what's true. That’s a very big problem.

This also operates on the false premise. I do know some things for 99.9999...% objective certainity and I know what the heck proof is. With evidence and proof and examination of said evidence and truth, I can increase the probability that some fact is true.

As for me - I know that God exists because of His divine revelation. And you can't tell me there's a problem with that if you know nothing.

That is insufficient objective proof that God exists. I can tell you there is a problem with that because I am not someone who knows nothing. Going back to my spoon and fork example, I can mistakenly tell everyone in my house that I stood in front of a spoon (which is incorrect) because I saw it with my own eyes (similar to all these so called 'divine revelations') but that does not mean that the object in front of me was a spoon. To correct myself I need to put on my glasses (re-examine the evidence) or get my family (with perfect eyesight) to see the object and describe it(peer-reviewed evidence) both of them will have me arrive at the position that the object was a fork, the objective truth of this example.


If god revealed himself to you, why not to me? Me who was born into a family that indoctrinated me into thinking that Hindu gods are true and I must worship their Idols? The Christian God is not a fan of idolaters, so why did he not reveal to me that I was doing something 'wrong' and then correct me? Pity that Jesus never reveals himself to people not born into christian families or people who don't live in areas of moderate to severe christian influence. Very curious.

Is it a coincidence that all of these Christian revelations all just so happen to occur in Christian Majority nations? Where the population is indoctrinated into thinking that Christianity is the truth? The Placebo effect is real and must be taken into consideration.

I am also curious to see what God supposedly said to you during revelation? How did he come before you? Could you not get some evidence of the revelation so that the world may follow God (That seems to be God's agenda, hence the Bible).

I hope you can see my friend. I only want you to arrive at truths based on evidence. Can you show us any scientific evidence that God exists rather than just annecdotal ones (because there are plenty of contradictory annecdotal evidences)?

I await your rebuttals to all my questions raised and points made.

Debate Round No. 3
godorabsurdity

Pro

I cover a number of very fatal flaws in your argument so please read thoroughly. :)

“The logic used here is very flawed. According to Pro's logic, since I said that I could be wrong about nothing, I therefore know everything. Isn't that the same logic pro used in his point?”

If I understand you correctly, I never said that. I said that because you could be wrong about everything, it follows that you know nothing. If you’re talking about me - no, I never said I know everything. I can know some things such that I can know them for certain. One of these is that God exists. And you can have no objection to this.

Pro's entire argument assumes a very false premise/assumption. That is, since someone could be wrong about something that is known, that person cannot know it. “

Duh. If I could be wrong about the speed limit outside, then I don’t know it.

“This is a very faulty line of reasoning. Nobody truly knows anything for 100% certain unless it has something to do with definitions, for example everybody knows for 100% that Homosexual males are not attracted to females. But that fact is only 100% because of the definitions of words. Other than that, nothing can be known for a 100%.”R32;

You said: “Other than that, nothing can be known for 100%.” Do you know that for 100% certain?? That’s an obvious (and absurd) contradiction. Obviously some things can be known for certain. But you (as you demonstrated) can’t account for certainty without God. That’s a big problem.

You keep saying you can’t know anything to be 100% certain - but how do you know anything to be even 0.000001% certain??

“There is a small chance that my username is not 'Theunkown' and I have been hallucinating all this time. But the chance of that (based on evidence of me and friends seeing this account) make me near certain that this account and the username is accurate. Though not 100%, just 99.99999.....%, but the probablity that my username is not 'Theunkown' is soo small that I might as well spend my time on this website knowing for sure that my username is ‘Theunkown’."

How do you know your username to be certain to even 0.000001% certainty?? You can’t!

If you can be wrong about everything, why are you debating me?? I can be certain that God exists through His revelation, and you can have no objection if you know nothing objectively. You can’t even know that you're not a brain in the vat without God.

Let me give another example. If I see a fork, but I forget to put on my glasses and assume it is a spoon and think it is a spoon, then it I have the specific knowledge that the object in front of me is a spoon.”

That’s absurd. How can you know something that’s not true?? I know that the moon is made of cheese. Uh… but it’s not…

I’m talking objective truth. Truth that is true regardless of your perception. God exists - that is objectively true, and I can know that for certain through his revelation, which again, you can’t object to if you know nothing. And you have yet another problem - you're saying truth is relative. Is that absolutely/objectively true? Another contradiction in your argument.

“It may be objectively false knowledge based off of faulty observations, but it is still knowledge because I know for 99.99999% certainity that it is a spoon but to me, subjectively, it is truth and knowledge. But then if I put my glasses on and find out it was a fork after all, I still know what the object in front of me (just like before) but I categorize it differently. “

Again, how do you know to even 0.000001% certainty?? You can’t! You can’t even know that you're not a brain in a vat. Yet we are still debating. (I hear people reading this say: “You could be wrong too.” But how do you know that if you know nothing?? It’s a big problem.)

“The only difference between knowing something that could be false and knowing something that could be true is the Objective truth of the knowledge, not the PRESENCE of knowledge. This is a key point that my opponent is missing in the philosophical component in this debate.”R32;

So you can’t know anything to be objectively true. Yet we are still debating. Sigh…

“Humans work in estimations, humans won't be bothered about the small percentage of chance that something that they 'know' is false. Which is why religious fundamentalists hardly convert to other religions or become irreligious. If sufficient evidence is given to make the probability of God existing high enough, I will live my life as if he exists. If no such evidence is provided, then there is no reason to live as if a god does exist and I live as normal.”R32;

Again, how do you know you're objectively right to even 0.000001%?? You can’t! Yet the very next thing you say is “If sufficient evidence is given…” Evidence presupposes objective truth. If you can’t know anything to be objectively true, why do you want “evidence”??

“All of these rebuttals by Pro is assuming that I don't know something, which I have shown to be an incorrect premise to work on. Therefore lets move on.”R32;R32;

You haven't shown anything. You still can’t know anything to be objectively true. And even when you say “…nothing can be known for 100%”, do you know that for 100% certain? A five year old could tell you that that’s a contradiction. It’s absurd!

I do know some things for 99.9999...% objective certainity and I know what the heck proof is. With evidence and proof and examination of said evidence and truth, I can increase the probability that some fact is true.”R32;

How do you know anything to be even 0.000001% true?? You can’t - yet you still want evidence, which presupposes objective truth. Why do you want evidence if you can know nothing to be objectively true??

I said: “As for me - I know that God exists because of His divine revelation. And you can't tell me there's a problem with that if you know nothing.”R32;R32;

You then said: That is insufficient objective proof that God exists.”

Objective proof presupposes objective truth. Objective truth presupposes God. You want evidence, when again, you can’t know anything to be objectively true…

“I can tell you there is a problem with that because I am not someone who knows nothing. Going back to my spoon and fork example, I can mistakenly tell everyone in my house that I stood in front of a spoon (which is incorrect) because I saw it with my own eyes (similar to all these so called 'divine revelations') but that does not mean that the object in front of me was a spoon. To correct myself I need to put on my glasses (re-examine the evidence) or get my family (with perfect eyesight) to see the object and describe it(peer-reviewed evidence) both of them will have me arrive at the position that the object was a fork, the objective truth of this example.”

Why do you want evidence (which presupposes objective truth) if you can’t know anything to be objectively true??

And also (you talked about using your senses to see the fork) you can’t even know your senses are valid without God. Tell me - how do you know your senses are valid? You can’t. You could think that you're a perfectly sane person in a room with blue walls, when in fact you’re a brain in a vat in a room with yellow walls!

If god revealed himself to you, why not to me? Me who was born into a family that indoctrinated me into thinking that Hindu gods are true and I must worship their Idols? The Christian God is not a fan of idolaters, so why did he not reveal to me that I was doing something 'wrong' and then correct me? Pity that Jesus never reveals himself to people not born into christian families or people who don't live in areas of moderate to severe christian influence. Very curious.”R32;R32;

He did reveal himself to you. And he still does. You know he exists. But you deny him, and therefore you have zero basis for any truth. Will ya look at that- it’s just like the Bible says: The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge

“Is it a coincidence that all of these Christian revelations all just so happen to occur in Christian Majority nations? Where the population is indoctrinated into thinking that Christianity is the truth? The Placebo effect is real and must be taken into consideration. “R32;

“The Placebo effect is real…” Is it? I thought you could be wrong?

And no, that’s not true what you said. Christian revelations happen everywhere. Obviously there is less denial of this revelation in Christian countries.

“I am also curious to see what God supposedly said to you during revelation? How did he come before you? Could you not get some evidence of the revelation so that the world may follow God (That seems to be God's agenda, hence the Bible).”

That he exists. Object to that.

How did he come before me? Irrelevant. How was this computer I’m typing on made? I don’t care - it works! But if you must know – he reveals himself through inner revelation and also through the Bible, and his amazing creation.

“Could you not get some evidence…”

“I only want you to arrive at truths based on evidence.”

Evidence presupposes objective truth. Objective truth presupposes God. Again, you can’t know anything to be objectively true, yet you still want evidence…

Can you show us any scientific evidence that God exists”R32;

Science presupposes objective truth. Objective truth presupposes God. You can’t know anything to be objectively true without God.

I hope you didn’t miss any of my points. Please read the above thoroughly and think about it.

-

Let’s summarize here:

1. How do you know anything to be 0.000001% objectively true?

2. “Other than that, nothing can be known for 100%.” Are you certain about that? (Think about it…)

3. Why do you want evidence/proof (which presupposes objective truth) if you can't know anything to be objectively true?

4. How do you know your senses are valid?

5. What is your objection to my claim to knowledge that God exists?

I strongly recommend you read over this a few times and have a good think before you respond.

Theunkown

Con

Once again my opponent misses the fatal flaw of his arguments. Just because someone cannot know everything for a 100% certainity, that does not necessarily mean that we have no knowledge. I won't bother rebutting most of the points because they would just be a repitition, since my opponent makes the same points in many rebuttals


That’s absurd. How can you know something that’s not true??

Of course you can know something that is not (objectively) true. You know that the Christian God exists and you know that idol worshipping is against god's will. Hindus know that Shiva exists and know that worshipping him through an idol representitive represents piety. Both of them contradict each other, yet both groups (Christians and Hindus) know that their god(s) exist and know the right way to worship them.



I’m talking objective truth. Truth that is true regardless of your perception. God exists - that is objectively true, and I can know that forcertain through his revelation, which again, you can’t object to if you know nothing. And you have yet another problem - you're saying truth is relative. Is that absolutely/objectively true? Another contradiction in your argument.

Nobody is going to deny that objective truth exists. The problem is getting to know that truth, since we are only limited to our human perception and reason, which has its flaws. And again, its not that I know nothing, its just that it is possible for none/some/many/all of my knowledge to be wrong. That does not automatically mean that I know nothing, that is just a ludicrous logic.

You mentioned that truth is true reguardless of perception, so what you perceive should not affect objective truth. In that case, how do you trust your biased perception when you perceived the so called 'revelation'? How do you know it was not hallucination, or the placebo effect, or the countless other rational explanations?

Every religious group can and do claim that their God or Godess revealed his/her existance to them. I have yet to meet a non-Christian who had deeply held beliefs in another religion or no religion, and out of the blue the Christian god revealed himself. But then again, we must doubt the validity of all annecdotal evidence.



“…nothing can be known for 100%”,do you know that for 100% certain? A five year old could tell you that that’s a contradiction.

I never said I knew that for a 100%. Don't act like you have suddenly figured this out all by yourself and nobody has ever thought about it (that's the tone I am getting from your arguments). Obviously I thought about this as well.
Based on my perception and reason, I can say that it is likely the case (Just as Aristotle did) for better or for worse.


How do you know anything to be even 0.000001% true?? You can’t - yet you still want evidence, which presupposes objective truth. Why do you want evidence if you can know nothing to be objectively true??

With such a low probablity (0.000001%) of truth, there must essentially be no evidence. If there was evidence, the probability of it being true increases. I don't see how this is illogical. This does not contradict the notion that evidence presupposes truth.

I want evidence to increase the probability of something being true. If the probability reaches a high enough percentage, its so high that any reasonable person would live their life knowing it to be truth, but the open minded person should always keep that small chance of the truth being wrong and proven wrong when counter-evidence is presented. As we have seen time and time again in history.


you can’t even know your senses are valid without God. Tell me - how do you know your senses are valid? You can’t.

That's exactly what my spoon and fork example was trying to showcase, Pro completely missed my point. How does Pro know his senses were valid when getting his revelation from god?


He did reveal himself to you. And he still does. You know he exists. But you deny him, and therefore you have zero basis for any truth.

I don't know how my opponent can claim what my beliefs are.
I have yet to receieve a revelation from the Christian God. I don't know that he exists, I infact disbelieve all claims of such Gods existing. Thus far in my life anyway. I don't simply 'deny' god, if I was given scientific evidence for the God of the Bible, I would believe in him. Also please don't say I am angry at god, becuase being angry at someone is different from not believing in someone. If I am angry at god, that means I must necessarily believe in him. But I don't.

Will ya look at that- it’s just like the Bible says: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge”

The knowledge that homosexuals should be stoned to death? The knowledge that witchcraft exists? The knowledge of superstition (as oxymoronic as it is)? The knowledge that Earth took several days to be created but the rest of the universe took just one?
No, just no. Fearing a supernatural being does not bring knowledge, all it does is bring fear.


And no, that’s not true what you said. Christian revelations happen everywhere. Obviously there is less denial of this revelation in Christiancountries.

Where is your evidence for this claim?


How did he come before me? Irrelevant.

How is it irrelevant? If your revelation was true, you could revolutionize the scientific community and the world at large.

How was this computer I’m typing on made? I don’t care - it works! But if you must know – he reveals himself through inner revelation and also through the Bible, and his amazing creation.

There are far more logical explanations for your inner revelation, the placebo effect for example. I am not a professional psychologist but you must validate your inner revelation with a trained scientist (psychologist). You could revolutionize the world, become a hero.
That's the first thing I would do if something like that happened to me.

If I say that I created the world in 7 days in a book, that counts as a revelation according to Pro anyway because that's basically counts as proof for god in the Bible, why not for me?
Why doesn't Pro believe in the Quranic God revealed in the Quran/Koran? Why doesn't Pro belive in the Hindu Gods revealed in all the ancient sanskrit literature? Why this special preference to the Christian God?

The same can be said about Pro's claim that 'creation' (i assume the universe) proves the Christian God. By the way, we have growing naturalistic explanations for the universe and its origins, every passing year brings with it new scientific knowledge. To credit God with the creation of the universe is an insult to all humanity has worked to acheive and learn so far.


You can’t know anything to be objectively true without God.

How do you know that to be objectively true?


How do you know your senses are valid?
The same can be asked of you (which is what I was essentially doing in previous rounds and this one).

What is your objection to my claim to knowledge that God exists?
The lack of scientific evidence to back up that claim, and the pressence of fallacious reasoning to support the claim.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dissmised without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens.
Debate Round No. 4
godorabsurdity

Pro

“Once again my opponent misses the fatal flaw of his arguments. Just because someone cannot know everything for a 100% certainity, that does not necessarily mean that we have no knowledge.”

Obviously it does mean that. If you could be wrong about everything, you don't know anything. If I told you the speed limit of "Wood Road" was 50kph, but I could be wrong, then I don't know the speed limit… Just like when you say you could be wrong about everything, you don't know anything!

Read that again and think about it.

Thank you.

This is key: If you don’t know anything, how do you know about a flaw in my argument??

“You mentioned that truth is true reguardless of perception, so what you perceive should not affect objective truth. In that case, how do you trust your biased perception when you perceived the so called 'revelation'? How do you know it was not hallucination, or the placebo effect, or the countless other rational explanations?”

You first conceded that you could be wrong about everything, which means you don't know anything. So if you don't know anything, how do you know that I could be wrong??

You said “…nothing can be known for 100%” and I asked if you were 100% certain about that.

“I never said I knew that for a 100%.”

Then why did you say it… Why are we debating about things you don't know…

Thing is… when you say you know nothing to 100% certainty, you can have no objection to what I claim to know for certain, because you could be wrong about your objection!

I said: “You can’t even know your senses are valid without God. Tell me - how do you know your senses are valid? You can’t.”

"That's exactly what my spoon and fork example was trying to showcase, Pro completely missed my point. How does Pro know his senses were valid when getting his revelation from god?"

That’s a Tu quoque fallacy. I asked how you know your senses are valid. Answer still is, you can’t know your senses are valid. That’s a problem. You use your senses to assess the validity of your senses. That’s a vicious circle.

You can’t turn that back on me, because you don't know anything. (Since you “could be wrong” about everything.)

"I have yet to receieve a revelation from the Christian God. I don't know that he exists…”

Yes you do. You might be suppressing the knowledge in your sin, but that doesn't change anything.

"There are far more logical explanations for your inner revelation, the placebo effect for example."

You’ve conceded that you could be wrong about everything - so you can’t know for certain what I can know. Yet you just told me what I can/can’t know. Big problem.

Why doesn't Pro believe in the Quranic God revealed in the Quran/Koran? Why doesn't Pro belive in the Hindu Gods revealed in all the ancient sanskrit literature? Why this special preference to the Christian God?

Because He’s the only one that exists, and you know it. By the way, why are you dancing around other religions? Defend your own atheistic worldview. And again, you can’t know what I can/can’t know if you don't know anything.

I want you to get this - Almost your entire argument is telling me the limits of what I can apparently know. But you can’t know what I can/can’t know, because you said you could be wrong about everything - therefore you could be wrong about your objection! So you can't tell me what I can know.

I said: You can’t know anything to be objectively true without God.”

"How do you know that to be objectively true?"

You demonstrated it yourself. You said you could be wrong about everything, so you don't know anything. Whereas I have God, so I can know things to be objectively true. And you can’t object to that if you know nothing. You can’t know that “I could be wrong” if you know nothing.

I asked: “How do you know your senses are valid?”

"The same can be asked of you (which is what I was essentially doing in previous rounds and this one)."

Blatant Tu quoque fallacy. I asked you.

Again, if you could be wrong about everything/know nothing, how do you know that my senses could be invalid??

I know mine are valid because it was revealed to me by God. And you can’t object to that if you know nothing/could be wrong about everything.

I asked: “What is your objection to my claim to knowledge that God exists?

"The lack of scientific evidence to back up that claim, and the pressence of fallacious reasoning to support the claim."

Evidence presupposes objective truth. Objective truth presupposes God. (You can’t know anything to be objectively true.)

-

I think the discerning reader will not miss my point, which is: If you don't know anything for certain, you cannot know what I can know. Not only did you seem to miss my point so far, which is crucial, but you've also used the Tu Quoque fallacy a number of times!

I can no longer respond to your statements, but I sincerely hope you didn't miss my crucial point.

The voter/s will without doubt be biased toward their worldview, so the "winner" title of this debate means nothing.

Theunkown

Con

It is clear to me that my opponent will not agree with me on this simple point of logic, that it is possible to have false information, believe in that false information and therefore know that false information to be true.

People in the past knew that thunderstorms were a sign from God, now we know that it is a naturally occuring phenomena occuring on many planets outside our own.

Some people know that Jesus is their lord, others know that Allah is, others know that the Hindu gods are.

There have been anecdotal evidence from every major religion claiming that their god (godess) revealed themselves to them.

Thing is… when you say you know nothing to 100% certainty, you can have no objection to what I claim to know for certain, because you could be wrong about your objection!

Just because there is a NEGLIGIBLE chance that I say something wrong, its unreasonable to assume that I am definitely wrong. Of course, that which applies to me, also applies to Pro as well since he is not some super natural entity.

"That's exactly what my spoon and fork example was trying to showcase, Pro completely missed my point. How does Pro know his senses were valid when getting his revelation from god?"

That’s a Tu quoque fallacy. I asked how you know your senses are valid. Answer still is, you can’t know your senses are valid. That’s a problem. You use your senses to assess the validity of your senses. That’s a vicious circle.


Its not a fallacy at all, I simply showed in the spoon and fork example that it is possible for human senses to be invalid (which applies to me AND Pro). However, this does not mean that any and all senses are invalid.

You can’t turn that back on me, because you don't know anything. (Since you “could be wrong” about everything.)

Pro can also be wrong about everything, its just that he does not admit it.
That's the only basis Pro's entire defense is on.

Meanwhile, Pro's entire offense is based on the very limited anecdotal evidence which is extremely subject to Pro's initial strong held beliefs, not only that, Pro's andecdote has not been scientifically evaluated. Also consider the fact that there is definitely contradictory anecdotal evidence that, in Pro's mind, could prove that a completely different God with completely different divine laws and belief system is true.

"I have yet to receieve a revelation from the Christian God. I don't know that he exists…”

Yes you do. You might be suppressing the knowledge in your sin, but that doesn't change anything.

Once again, my opponent has no ability to claim what I know or do not know and he cannot claim that I am 'suppressing knowledge in my sin' which makes absolutely no sense.


Because He[Christian God] the only one that exists, and you know it. By the way, why are you dancing around other religions? Defend your own atheistic worldview. And again, you can’t know what I can/can’t know if you don't know anything.


My opponent has given very little evidence to show that his God exists, and has shown no counter evidence to any other major religion being false. With that, he cannot claim that the Christian God is the ONLY god that exists with full certainity.

I bring in other religions to put things into persepective by Pro. The atheistic worldview, i.e. the notion that there is likely no god and hence has no reason to believe in one, is not something that needs to be defended as it is the default position unless sufficient evidence to present the case that God does exist.

If a person is raised without any exposure to religion, that person would fit into an atheistic worldview, simply because it is the default. Pro must realize that it is up to him to make claims about Christianity and defend them with evidence, which he has failed to do.

I want you to get this - Almost your entire argument is telling me the limits of what I can apparently know. But you can’t know what I can/can’t know, because you said you could be wrong about everything - therefore you could be wrong about your objection!

I could be wrong about my objection, but that does not mean that it must be treated as 100% wrong. The voters will decide whether my objections are right or wrong based on what is written here and the facts.

I know [my senses] are valid because it was revealed to me by God. And you can’t object to that if you know nothing/could be wrong about everything.

The possibility of being wrong about everything does not necessarily presuppose knowing nothing. I am sick of saying this again and again. Also, I didn't just apply this to myself, I applied it to all humans, since the viewpoint is a philosophically sound position.

Now, back to the revelation, so apparently what I get from Pro's argument is this:
One day (or night) God supposedly revealed himself (and the CHRISTIAN god at that, wonder which denomination got it right, the Orthodox?) to Pro and also told him specifically that his senses are valid.

Once again, I ask: How do we know that Pro nad fully functioning senses during the day of the revelation? We can't, which is why annecdotal evidence is not a good way of determining truth, not in the Criminal courts, not in the scientific community and just not a good way of knowing something for sure in general.

Objective truth presupposes God. (You can’t know anything to be objectively true.)

No. Just no. According to Pro, if this universe was created naturally and not through God, that means that it is impossible to know that Oxygen exists since objective truth presupposes God according to him.

How can Pro even make the claim that God is required to have such a thing as objective truth?

The voter/s will without doubt be biased toward their worldview, so the "winner" title of this debate means nothing.

I wonder why my opponent says this? I interpret this as a concession, simply because Christians outnumber atheists 2:1 and Religious people outnumber the irreligious 6:1.

Pro can rest assured that if any biased votes come, they are statistically more likely to be in his favor.


I hope the readers see the fallacious reasoning to prevent any of my arguments from being valid, by making the magical claim that I know nothing because there is a chance that I (like all humans) could be wrong about everything we know.

I also hope the readers recognize that Pro has given very insufficient evidence to Prove God and has not fulfilled his Burden of Proof.










------x-----Footnote-----x-----

As an interesting experiment, it would be nice if any and all voters would state their religion or lack thereof when voting.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
*just is irrelevant
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
== RFD ==

I don"t have much time, so I"ll just go over the main points. First, I disagree with Con"s observation that Pro has the BoP -- the resolution states "Theism vs. Atheism," not "God exists." A "versus" question means you posit arguments for *both* positions, unless you"re able to demonstrate *why* Pro has the BoP. Ergo, as a judge, I"m voting on a shared BoP. The debate only addresses Christian theism -- not necessarily Pro"s *beliefs.* While Pro accepts that they are a creationist, that does not entail that they have to justify creationism -- it just isn"t irrelevant. So the age of the Earth doesn"t link, and Con"s position that Pro has to demonstrate a young Earth is not justified properly. Onto the arguments.

The arguments come down to whether truth presupposes God. It was an insufficiently explained impact. It basically goes: truth presupposes God, truth exists, God exists. Pro does not explain *how* "truth" exists, let alone presupposes God. The argument is insufficiently explained -- I don"t understand what "truth" means, or how Pro concludes truth presupposes God. And Con shows that "1+1" is obtained without God. So the truth argument fails. But I don"t have any offense to go on from Con either, and, under a shared BoP, that"s insufficient. Voters should only give positive votes on defenses under a shared BoP. Ergo, I vote a tie.
Posted by Theunkown 1 year ago
Theunkown
Please don't forfiet.
Posted by Theunkown 1 year ago
Theunkown
At the end of round 4 when I wrote: What is your objection to my claim to knowledge that God exists?
It was a quote from Pro although I did not Quote it like the other quotes from Pro. However, my reply is as normal. Just to clarify.
Posted by Theunkown 1 year ago
Theunkown
Think I wrote too much to reply to too little.
Posted by Theunkown 1 year ago
Theunkown
Logical Mind,
saying what you just said is MY job...
Posted by Logical-mind 1 year ago
Logical-mind
The concept of god has been around forever. So long, in fact, that throughout history there have been literally hundreds of different gods. We know today that gods like Thor, Wotan, Yahweh, and the tons of other ones make up only a portion of the large number of them. We also know that they were relevant then, for those people living in that epoch. But like those gods, the christian god is also not real but merely a superstition that has been perpetuated through the ages.

The only reason anyone is faithful to a particular god is because of the religion they were raised with. Christians are well known for snubbing any other god except the jesus dude However, consider you had been born in India and raised in a traditional indian family, would you not perhaps have scoffed at christianity and favoured Hinduism? Perhaps you'd have been faithful to Allah and his flying horse if you were raised in an Arab, Muslim, home.

As for gods existence, it cannot be proven that he exists or doesn't exist. But neither can prove nor disprove the existence of fairies. That doesn't mean that fairies are real because we can't prove their existence. Personally I believe god is man made, much like Wotan, Yahweh and the other gods. The stories in the bible are just that, stories. If gods one goal, desire, is to be noticed, then why does he go to such great pains to hide himself?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
godorabsurdityTheunkownTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.