The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Kyro
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Theism is a Superior Wordview to the Belief in atheist Dogma:

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Kyro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 349 times Debate No: 103441
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

Regarding the atheistic inability to apprehend certain facts about God's position as the source for existence, it is impossible for any entity to be the source for any quality unless it possesses that quality itself. No food that contains no iron, for example, can possibly be a source of iron. Similarly, no entity that contains no personal characteristics, no intellectual phenomena such as logic or reason, no love, and no life of its own, three qualities that the atheist believes the universe lacked at some point, could possibly be the source of such qualities in any other entity, regardless of how comparatively small or large that entity is.

The believer in atheist Dogma believes that the universe is the source, however, and that belief is 100% illogical.

We are faced with the following two mutually exclusive world-views:

1. We Theists understand that God is the Original Archetype, or source, for all observable phenomena, including intellectual phenomena, such as reason and logic, and emotional phenomena, such as love. He is infinitely complete with eternal life of His own, and He possesses both personal and impersonal characteristics, as well as love, eternally. This is a logically sound account for life, for logic and reason, for love, and for all personal and impersonal observable phenomena.

2. The believer in atheist Dogma believes that God is not the original personal archetype. Instead, the atheist attributes this role, using varying semantic constructs, to "the universe." Unfortunately, the universe that the atheist claims supposedly gave rise to life, logic, reason, love, and all personal characteristics was, according to the believer in atheist Dogma, supposedly devoid of all these phenomena at some unspecified time that he theorizes is prior to the hypothetical advent of such phenomena. The atheistic claim is logically unsound when it comes to accounting for clearly observable life, clearly observable intellectual phenomena such as logic and reason, clearly observable love, and clearly observable personal phenomena.

CONCLUSION:

Therefore, we Theists' world-view is logically superior to that of the believer in atheist Dogma, and any truly unbiased and logically savvy party must necessarily accept this fact. Lack of scriptural or logical refutation of these facts shows acceptance by any and all who post in this thread.
Kyro

Con

The belief in God in the way that Pro has described it is logically impossible.

Argument 1 -
Pro claims that God is loving of all humans. However, how can one believe that God is loving in the world in which we live? Every day, people are tortured in the Middle East. People are killed for things such as their sexuality or their religion. Women are oppressed, and many countries are at war with each other and terrorist groups such as ISIS. In addition, many babies are born with irreparable birth defects, such as anencephaly (1). These babies will die soon after they are born, despite having never committed any wrong action. Are these babies loved by God? Does God show his love through vicious murder?

God is omnipotent. This means that, at any time, God could stop all of these horrible things from happening. However, instead, he chooses to watch them happening and do nothing about them. A truly benevolent God would never do such things.

Rebuttal 1 -
Pro also claims that "it is impossible for any entity to be the source for any quality unless it possesses that quality itself." However, this is clearly false. Pro gives the examples of "intellectual phenomena such as logic or reason" as things that cannot be created by something that does not possess them itself.

However, the basic laws of physics prove this to be false. The first unicellular organisms had no "logic or reason". However, as unicellular organisms evolved, they became more and more complex. Eventually, neuron cells developed. As neural networks expanded, they allowed for complex chains of electric impulses to be sent through an organism. Once you achieve a sufficiently astronomical number of neurons, such as the 100 billion in the human brain (2), logic and reason are perfectly possible.

The argument of "something from nothing" is, so far, the only argument that Pro has presented. Since I have refuted it and presented my own argument of benevolence in such an awful world, I have sufficiently proved that Theism is not a superior worldview.

Sources:

(1) https://www.cdc.gov...
(2) https://faculty.washington.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
Purushadasa

Pro

Someone wrote:

"The belief in God in the way that Pro has described it is logically impossible.

I have not described any supposed "belief in God," so that is nothing but a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"Argument 1 -
Pro claims that God is loving of all humans."

No I didn't, so that is a second straw man on your part.

"Every day, people are tortured in the Middle East."

Without God, torture could not be objectively wrong.

" People are killed for things such as their sexuality or their religion."

Without God, killing could not be objectively wrong.

" Women are oppressed, and many countries are at war with each other and terrorist groups such as ISIS."

Without God, oppression, war, and terrorism could not be objectively wrong.

" In addition, many babies are born with irreparable birth defects, such as anencephaly (1)."

Without God, being born with a birth defect could not be an objectively bad thing.

" These babies will die soon after they are born"

Without God, dying soon after birth could not be an objectively bad thing.

"Are these babies loved by God?"

Yes.

"Does God show his love through vicious murder?"

No.

"God is omnipotent."

You are correct about that -- thank you for your agreement and support, and God bless you!

" However, instead, he chooses to watch them happening and do nothing about them."

No he doesn't.

"Rebuttal 1 -
Pro also claims that "it is impossible for any entity to be the source for any quality unless it possesses that quality itself.""

Thank you for actually quoting me correctly, for just this once, instead of dishonestly strawmannirg me, as you did above.

" However, this is clearly false."

No it isn't.

" Pro gives the examples of "intellectual phenomena such as logic or reason" as things that cannot be created by something that does not possess them itself."

No I didn't, so that is yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"However, the basic laws of physics prove this to be false."

No they don't.

" The first unicellular organisms had no "logic or reason". However, as unicellular organisms evolved, they became more and more complex."

No they didn't.

" Eventually, neuron cells developed."

No they didn't.

"The argument of "something from nothing" is, so far, the only argument that Pro has presented."

I did not present such an argument, no: That is yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"I have sufficiently proved that Theism is not a superior worldview."

No you haven't.

You lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Kyro

Con

"I have not described any supposed "belief in God," so that is nothing but a straw man logical fallacy on your part."

The "belief in God" which you have specified is comprised of the word "Theism" in the title of this debate (1) and all of your statements about God in Round One, including that God is loving, that God has intelligence, etc. That is what you have described. Unless you wish to change the topic of this debate, you cannot dispute that you have outlined a "belief in God", even if nowhere but in the title.

" 'Argument 1 -
Pro claims that God is loving of all humans.'
No I didn't, so that is a second straw man on your part."

I concede that Pro did not claim that God is loving of all humans. I revise my point in this way:
Pro claims that God possesses the quality of love.

For the rest of this debate, know that Pro has agreed that God is omnipotent:
" 'God is omnipotent.'
You are correct about that -- thank you for your agreement and support, and God bless you!"
This means that God is all-powerful and can do anything which he chooses to do.

"Without God, torture could not be objectively wrong."
"Without God, killing could not be objectively wrong."
"Without God, oppression, war, and terrorism could not be objectively wrong."
"Without God, being born with a birth defect could not be an objectively bad thing."
"Without God, dying soon after birth could not be an objectively bad thing."

I never stated that torture, killing, etc. could be objectively wrong in a world without God. However, in a world WITH God, torture, killing, etc. ARE objectively wrong. Therefore, because torture, killing, etc. happen to innocent people, if God exists, then God allows objectively wrong things to happen.

" 'Are these babies [with anencephaly] loved by God?'
Yes.
'Does God show his love through vicious murder?'
No."
" 'However, instead, he chooses to watch them happening and do nothing about them.'
No he doesn't."

We have already established that God is omnipotent. If God is omnipotent, then God could choose to stop babies from being born with anencephaly and dying in the first few weeks of their life. There are only two options:
1. God is omnipotent. Therefore, he can do anything. Therefore, he can stop torture, killing, etc. from happening, but he still doesn't.
2. God is not omnipotent. We have already established that God is omnipotent, so this option is ruled out.
Killing a baby within the first few weeks of their life would be deemed cruel if done by a human. However, God lets it happen through nature every single day.

" 'Pro gives the examples of "intellectual phenomena such as logic or reason" as things that cannot be created by something that does not possess them itself.'
No I didn't, so that is yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part."

Allow me to show the exact quotes where Pro states what Pro claims he didn't state. Each of these quotes is drawn directly from the first paragraph of his argument. ALL CAPS is added in some places to show Pro's self-contradiction.

"it is impossible for any entity to be the source for any quality unless it possesses that quality itself."
"NO ENTITY THAT CONTAINS no personal characteristics, NO INTELLECTUAL PHENOMENA SUCH AS LOGIC OR REASON, no love, and no life of its own, three qualities that the atheist believes the universe lacked at some point, COULD POSSIBLY BE THE SOURCE OF SUCH QUALITIES IN ANY OTHER ENTITY"

It is clearly visible that Pro has contradicted himself.

" 'The first unicellular organisms had no "logic or reason". However, as unicellular organisms evolved, they became more and more complex.'
No they didn't.
'Eventually, neuron cells developed.'
No they didn't."

I provide source (2) as an explanation of how unicellular organisms evolved and neuron cells developed. Claiming that these events didn't happen requires one of the following two conditions:
1. Scientists are lying or incompetent. This statement is impossible to prove, as neither Pro nor I are experts on the evolution of unicellular organisms. Instead, I provided a source from experts (2), while Pro has provided nothing.
2. God is real. Using this claim to prove that unicellular organisms didn't evolve into more complex beings is question-begging (3).

I am not arguing that unicellular organism evolution is the only possible way that logic and reason could have been created. Instead, I am disproving Pro's claim that "it is impossible for any entity to be the source for any quality unless it possesses that quality itself" by providing an example of such an event.

" 'The argument of "something from nothing" is, so far, the only argument that Pro has presented.'
I did not present such an argument, no: That is yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part."

Allow me to explain. The "something from nothing" argument is Pro's argument that "it is impossible for any entity to be the source for any quality unless it possesses that quality itself." This argument is the only argument that Pro has presented so far.

I would also appreciate if you could be more courteous in this debate. After all, that is one of the ways that the debate will be scored, and you have been somewhat rude in your Round Two argument, saying things like "You lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)" when there are still two rounds left. Please be more respectful so that we may have a reasonable debate based on facts and logic.

Sources:

(1) https://www.merriam-webster.com...
(2) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
(3) http://www.txstate.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
Purushadasa

Pro

FULL STOP:

"The "belief in God" which you have specified is comprised of the word "Theism" "

Actually, you are right about that: I used the wrong word for what I was trying to describe, and you correctly called me out on it.

I was not expecting that, and I have to congratulate you for your acumen.

Because this point is so central to my argument, and because you have truly crushed me on this point, and I have no counter-argument to your statement regarding belief in God, I honestly have no choice but to forfeit this entire debate to you: You win! =)

I repeat -- you win this debate.

What I will do, however, is re-word my argument, fixing it so that it does not include any explicit or implicit reference to any "belief in God," because I actually have no beliefs.

After I re-word my argument, I will start a brand-new, different debate, which will be along the same general lines, except without the word "Theism." I will upload the edited version as soon as the site authorizes my account to upload another debate challenge (probably later today, or perhaps early tomorrow morning).

I also have to congratulate you for making me realize that I am not a Theist -- which comes as a bit of a shock to me -- because, as you implied, being a Theist would entail holding a belief of some sort, which I definitely do not.

I have been referring to myself as a Theist for decades, but I was wrong about that all along!

Thank you for your correction of my error, and congratulations on being the only person on this site (so far) who has actually been able to defeat me in a debate!

Please watch for my updated version, which will most likely be uploaded later today, or perhaps early tomorrow morning.

The new one will be undefeatable, actually, so please stay tuned!

It has truly been a pleasure debating you -- and losing!

Maybe, if you're willing, we can debate again some time. =)
Kyro

Con

Vote Con, Pro has forfeited. It has been a pleasure debating you.
Debate Round No. 3
Purushadasa

Pro

It's true -- I did forfeit this debate: Con won, no matter how anyone votes.
Kyro

Con

Again, please vote Con for the sake of accuracy, as Pro has forfeited.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by kenballer 4 months ago
kenballer
@Kyro

If reason and the scientific evidence showed that the Judeo-Christian God existed and was morally perfect, would you pursue a relationship with him to obtain salvation?
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
You are a two-legged animal: Thanks for asking! =)
Posted by PowerPikachu21 5 months ago
PowerPikachu21
If there's no Atheists (people who don't believe in a god), then what am I; a person who believes there's no God?
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
I am not an atheist: I am a Theological Realist.

Actually, there is no such thing as an atheist.
Posted by ChurnedCreamery 5 months ago
ChurnedCreamery
Everyone is an atheist, everyone denies the existence of a singular God, let alone all other Gods.
Posted by platoandaristotle 5 months ago
platoandaristotle
platonic physics is outdated
Posted by canis 5 months ago
canis
Yes you can call theisme a worldview.. You can call it one dream or another..
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 5 months ago
Phenenas
PurushadasaKyroTied
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: Pro forfeited.
Vote Placed by PowerPikachu21 5 months ago
PowerPikachu21
PurushadasaKyroTied
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: Pro concedes. (And apparently didn't know that theism is the belief in a god.) I'll also give Conduct to Con since Pro only tries to refute arguments with "no it isn't", and just wastes time.
Vote Placed by MagicAintReal 5 months ago
MagicAintReal
PurushadasaKyroTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Con because Pro concedes 3rd round that Con's "point is so central to [Pro's] argument, and because [Con has] truly crushed [Pro] on this point, and [Pro has] no counter-argument to [Con's] statement regarding belief in God...[Pro] honestly [has] no choice but to forfeit this entire debate to [Con]: [Con wins]...[Pro repeats] -- [Con wins] this debate." That's a direct quote from Pro, and I view this as a concession of arguments to Con. Therefore, arguments to Con.