The Instigator
Installgentoo
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ajabi
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Theism is a More Rational World-view than Atheism

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 5 votes the winner is...
Ajabi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/11/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 543 times Debate No: 61529
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

Installgentoo

Pro

First of all, let's define some terms;

Theism- belief in the existence of at least one deity
Atheism- disbelief in the existence of deities or a divine reality
Rational- something which concurs with sound reasoning

First round is acceptance/ quibbling over definitions only.
Ajabi

Con

I accept this debate. I feel that "theism" unlike "deism" also implies religion. It so follows then that my opponent must provide analysis supporting one specific religion, alongside a divine reality. Also my opponent has the BoP as the resolution is absolute, and uses no comparative terms.
Debate Round No. 1
Installgentoo

Pro

I disagree with the assertion that "theism unlike deism also implies religion". Theism means one believes in a God who one knows the mind of. Many deists believe that they know the mind of the God they believe in. Therefore, my defence of theism does not have to include a defence of deism. I also would like to ask OP to provide a small amount of burden of proof in not just contesting the reasons I have for why it is more reasonable to be a theist than an atheist, but also to explain why he thinks atheism is more rational than theism.

Now, onto the debate.

The first reason I believe theism to be a more rational world-view than atheism is that theism provides a reason why our universe came into being from literally nothing. Cosmologists agree that there was nothing at one point in our universe.[1] But that raises the question of how anything came to be from that nothingness. Belief in God (a transendent, non-physical being) provides a simple and rational explanation for how that happened in the Big Bang.

The second reason I have for believing theism is more rational than atheism is that theism makes sense of why the universe can produce conscious, intelligent creatures like you and I. When you see a map, you know that it is designed to provide a plan for something, and the universe has had such a plan even in the opinion of well-known people of science, like the former "Astronomer Royal", Fred Hoyle.[2] I am not trying to appeal to authority here, but am simply saying such a view of the universe is respected in the field of science even though many scientists today unfortunately believe in naturalism. That should tell you something.

The final reason I believe theism is more rational than atheism is that theism makes sense of why there are objective moral values and duties in the World. A moral or ethical value is true because it's sensed to be so, and remains part of peoples values regardless of where they are brought up or what have you. Values like love, kindness, etc, are universally sensed to be good. Any arguments against us having moral senses can be also used against us having physical senses, the impulses of wanting to do good or love people are so strong. Since it can be argued that there exist at least some objective moral values, it follows some ultimate thing would have to exist who has similarly objective, unchanging, good values. This is what many people refer to as "God."

Footnotes

[1] http://www.abc.net.au...
[2]http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com...
Ajabi

Con

I think before I begin I should clarify the meanings a bit more. Let me start by taking the definition of 'theism'. Theism is defined as: 'the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).'.[1] While 'Deism' is defined as: 'belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ).'.

This means that theism does not deny organized religion, far from taking God to be indifferent to humans, theists believe in a God who is tri-omni, and is actively engaged in human affairs, and has revealed a religion to follow. This is a very important analysis and before beginning I would like these definitions, and their consequences to be clear. Theists cannot deny revealed religion, even if they disagree as to which religion. The resolution is very clear in so far as it deals with 'theism' and not 'deism'.

Now before starting the debate I think it worthy for some burden of proof analysis. The motion lays forth an affirmative, absolute claim. This means that let 'X' stand for this motion, and so my opponent must show []X (necessarily X) while I need only ~[]X (negation of necessarily X) which translated to <>~X (possibly not X). So while my opponent must prove his case beyond any doubt, I need only show room for doubt, if I can do that I win this debate. The burden of proof is all on my opponent.

Some introduction should be given. In this debate my opponent must show this: there exists a God, He has given a certain religion, and following that religion is the most productive thing one can do. If he fails to show any one of these he cannot win a debate. For a theistic world view means that one looks at the world from a perspective of belief in the above three, to justify such a perspective the above three must be justified. Until they are, my opponent will lose this debate. I will first move on to counter the contentions of my opponent, and then if I have space, I shall present some problems which my opponent must answer. If I succeed in any one tier, I win this debate.

The first reason that my opponent provides, is in fact an argument ad ignoratium. It shows, if anything, the dogma of religion more than anything else. It basically states that since science does not have a confirmed answer to how this universe was made, there must have been a Creator God who did so. This may also be represented by the Kalam Cosmological Argument, but I won't go into that because my opponent never provides an argument. All my opponent states is that since Time was once finite, and we do not yet have a proved reason for the creation, there must be a God. This is inherently flawed, for firstly it commits a logical fallacy. Secondly while physicists agree that Time was finite, they do not believe that Space was finite. According to the Hawking-Heartle model of the Lamda-Cold Dark Matter Model of the Big Bang Universe it is perfectly rational to say this Universe was not created, rather an infinite series of multi-verses are stacked upon each other. In fact to ask what happened before the Big Bang is a meaningless statement.[3][4] This point fails miserably.

The second reason is also an out-dated reason, and my opponent provides no proof for his claims. He needs to show us why he feels conscious, intelligent beings could not have come to being without the aid of God. Since he does not do this, his argument should once more be ignored. Even so, I will rebut that he has said. There is no good reason why the process of evolution could not have yielded conscious life. As writes the celebrated Robin Dunbar: '...consciousness, language, and such could have easily come into being over a large period of time through evolution. We started off with simple sounds, and over time developed elaborate languages.'[5] Also keeping in mind how it is proven that the Early Universe contained nothing but Hydrogen in a cosmic mush it follows that we are all created from the breaking apart of those particles into newer particles. How can my opponent state that there is an a plan when at a time we were all floating sub-atomic particles. Then from that slowly different elements formed, and we are all a mixture of those elements.[6] My opponent's argument would only make sense if the Universe began with planets, and humans. Since this is not the case, my contentions stand.

My opponent's arguments on the third reason rest on two unproven hypothesis: a. there are objective moral values, b. objective moral values can only exist with a God. I contend this on both levels: firstly there cannot be objective moral values for that would presume a binary logic system. Instead actions can also be amoral. Is it moral or immoral for me to grow my hair long,? Is it moral or immoral for me to massage my foot? Is it moral or immoral for me to have a glass of water? Sure in certain circumstances it could be argued that these actions are moral, or immoral. For example it could be argued that it is immoral for me to have a glass of water in front of a person who is dying from dehydration, when I do not need the water. In all this however, is there an inherent moral value to the water? No, there is only one to the conditions. Hence forth objective moral values cannot exist.[7]

On a second tier I do not see why God must exist for objective valued morals. An excellent rebuttal to all this is given by Sam Harris in his 'The Moral Landscape'. I feel no need to expand on that at this moment because I feel that my opponent never provided an argument for me to refute, and my earlier contentions deals with the argument as a whole in any case.

I shall now in the remaining space present one argument which argues against the theistic God. Remember unless the theistic God exists, and a certain religion can be provided the more rational perspective of the world would be one where one says: I do not know what happens. It is more rational to say we do not have the answers, and invest time into science to get those answers than to presuppose a mythical being. Its as simple as that.

So a theistic God must be tri-omni, in this case I present William L. Rowe's argument against God from the Problem of Evil. It states (I have copied the premise-conclusion, but I have cited it. The explanation is my own though):
'1.There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
3. (Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.

The second premise is self-proving. For the first consider a forest fire where a deer is trapped. In this fire the deer is burned and dies after days of agony, it is unnecessary suffering which does not forward any good. Since this suffering exists, a tri-omni God could not exist. Hence it is foolish and irrational to have a world-perspective having such a God.[8]

[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2]http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3]http://arxiv.org...
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5]Introduction to Evolution by Robin Dunbar
[6]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7]http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...
[8]http://en.wikipedia.org...

Faithfully Yours,
Ajab
Debate Round No. 2
Installgentoo

Pro

Installgentoo forfeited this round.
Ajabi

Con

Please please please do not forfeit again. I did put a lot of effort in the argument you know. Hai hai hai. In any case I extend all contentions.
Debate Round No. 3
Installgentoo

Pro

Installgentoo forfeited this round.
Ajabi

Con

I refuted my opponent's arguments, and I presented arguments which were never answered. I feel that I deserve the win here, but I leave it to the voters' intelligence and sound decision. I extend all previous contentions. Thank you for voting.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
Send me this debate too Gentoo.
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
How boring.... I wanted this debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by AlternativeDavid 2 years ago
AlternativeDavid
InstallgentooAjabiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
InstallgentooAjabiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff. Hai hai hai.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
InstallgentooAjabiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
InstallgentooAjabiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Gentoo, maybe it's time to roll back on that arrogance complex you have.
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
InstallgentooAjabiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF