The Instigator
Mathaelthedestroyer
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Billdekel
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

There is a God

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/16/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,478 times Debate No: 25637
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (0)

 

Mathaelthedestroyer

Con

I know this is a really common debate topic that's been done a thousand times before, but I'd like to try my hand at it. I am taking the con position in this debate, which means I am denying the existence of God. In this case, I mean the Judaeo-Christian as described in the bible. The burden of proof here lies completely on pro; all I really have to do is refute his or her arguments to prove my case. (That being said, I will present some arguments of my own to keep things interesting.)

Rules and format are pretty standard:
1) No semantics
2) Forfeiting a round counts as a concession
3) 48 hours to respond
4) Courteous and respectful conduct is expected

I'm keeping this at three rounds to avoid redundancy. Whoever accepts should use the first round to establish his or her case (and not just for acceptance). Round two will be my rebuttal to pro's argument (and any arguments I wish to present) and pro's follow-ups, rebuttals, or new arguments. Round three will be final rebuttals, clarifications, and closing arguments (no new arguments, please).

Thank you in advance to anyone who accepts. I hope we can make this interesting and informative.
Billdekel

Pro

I accept.

Before I start I would like to ask you a question.

What reasons do you have for holding the position of atheism? Your reasons are based upon logic and/or evidence or lack of it. So, is there any reason/evidence for you holding your position that you defend?


First argument

First, I would say that I can prove that anyone who looks at a building and says that he doesn't believe that there was a builder, is a fool. This is because a building is absolute proof that there was a builder. Buildings don't build themselves, from nothing. Only a fool would believe that."

Second, I would say that anyone who looks at a painting and believes that there was no painter, is a fool. The painting is absolute proof that there as [sic] a painter. Paintings don't paint themselves, from nothing. Only a fool would believe that.

Then I would say that creation is absolute 100% scientific proof that there is a Creator. A creation cannot create itself, from nothing. But that's what the atheist believes--that nothing created everything from nothing. That's a scientific impossibility, and its silly to would believe that.

Second Argument

How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God? The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute, they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how do you account for them?

Examples of logical absolutes are: something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time (Law of non-contradiction). A thing is what it is (Law of identity). A statement is either true or false (Law of excluded middle). These are simple, absolute logical absolutes.

The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and are always true all the time everywhere. They are not physical properties. How do atheists account for them from an atheist perspective?


Thoughts reflect the mind
  1. A person's thoughts are the product of that person's mind.
  2. A mind that is irrational, will produce irrational thoughts.
  3. A mind that is rational, will produce rational thoughts.
  4. It seems fair to say that an absolutely perfect mind would produce perfect thoughts.
  5. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then it seems proper to say that they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.
  6. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God since a physical brain is not transcendent by nature because it is limited to physical space, and God is, by definition, transcendent in nature.
Debate Round No. 1
Mathaelthedestroyer

Con

I'd like to thank Billdekel for accepting this debate. He has accepted his burden of proof and so I will begin.

Pro begins by asking me why I am an atheist. This is a point I was going to bring up after rebuttals, but it won't hurt to go ahead and get it out of the way. My main reasons are as follows:
1) Lack of evidence. As cliche as this phrase has become, it is still very relevant: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that there is an omniscient, omnipotent being who has willed the entire cosmos into existence, has created time, space, and gravity, has fine-tuned the universe to sustain itself, and has created all of us is an extraordinary one. Such a claim, therefore, must be substantiated with extraordinary evidence. This evidence must go far beyond a self-contradictory, tenuous work of literature that has been shown not to be historically or logically accurate [1]. It must also go beyond certain aspects of the world or the universe happening to work out some of the time. In other words, the fact that we're at an ideal distance from the sun, thus allowing life to flourish, doesn't prove the existence of God. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't be here to have this debate, as is the case in the millions of exoplanets that cannot sustain life.
2) The universe functions perfectly well without presupposing God. We now understand many aspects of the universe, and of time, space, gravity, et cetera. A thousand years ago, before scientific and technological advances, using God as a 'prime mover' for the cosmos was the best explanation of how things work. But we've moved past that. We know why the earth orbits the sun; we know why the tides come in and go out; we know how the universe began and how it has developed since then. (I don't think these are specific enough to require sources, but if pro wishes for me to provide them I will in the next round.) And the beauty of this is that it all functions perfectly well without needing to work God into the equation. Here, Occam's Razor takes over. If the universe functions as it should without the idea of an infinitely complex being, it would be illogical to include said being in the equation. It's unnecessary and, as we understand more and more, becomes increasingly unlikely.
3) Many aspects of life don't make sense presupposing God. This one is a bit more subjective, so bear with me. Let me give an example of this: our galaxy is currently on a collision course with the Andromeda galaxy. Our sun is due to explode in a few billion years. We are slowly losing our moon. A star has died and exploded every second since the universe began. (I think these are common enough knowledge that they don't require sources, but again, I can provide them if requested.) Genocide, rape, and destruction are all too common. Now ask yourself which is more likely: a) that these things are all happening as the result of an unknowable and elaborate plan that God has carefully constructed and oversees, or b) that these things are happening because the Big Bang created groups of matter and energy and that are randomly hurtling through space. I think it's the latter, and a claim to the former would require.. you guessed it: extraordinary evidence.

I'd like to touch on this (and elaborate on the three points I've made) more in the next round so that I have enough space for rebuttals.

Rebuttals:
"First, I would say that I can prove that anyone who looks at a building and says that he doesn't believe that there was a builder, is a fool," etc.
I agree. When I see unnatural things, I also conclude they were made. When I look at a sunset, though, I don't believe it had a creator, nor when I look at trees, or the earth, or our galaxy. Unnatural things do not require a creator, and thus you have created a false analogy. A computer requires a creator because it cannot be made by natural means. But other, natural things, like rain, happen of their own accord. A creator for these things is unnecessary.

"But that's what the atheist believes--that nothing created everything from nothing. That's a scientific impossibility, and its silly to would believe that." Besides being extremely reductionist, this claim is false. Many scientists actually do maintain that 'something' can come from 'nothing.' Lawrence Krauss, a prominent theoretical physicist, actually has a book and an online lecture entitled "A Universe From Nothing." In it, he explains that 'nothing' actually refers to zero net energy; this means that gravity (which has negative energy) and matter (positive) cancel each other out. In this Zero-Energy universe, which ours has been proven to be, quantum fluctuations (a result of quantum particles sporadically popping in and out of existence) can produce singularities. We know the Big Bang originated in a singularity, and thus the cycle of our universe unfolds before our eyes [2]. Your argument here is easily dismantled.

I would like to point out that pro's entire second argument was plagiarized from this website: http://www.4forums.com...
However, even in plagiarized form, this argument does not follow. Why do 'logical absolutes' prove a God? Even if pro wants to argue that these laws presuppose a God, that would not mean that God follows from them. Here is an elaboration on that point: "To say that A presupposes B is to say that we could not "make sense" of A without assuming B. However, supposing we grant that one must assume B to make sense of A, it does not follow that B is true. For example, if I am trying to communicate to an audience by speaking to them in English, my action makes no sense unless they understand English. But it does not follow that they do. They might only understand Chinese. Scientists listening to radio signals from outer space in order to make contact with extraterrestrial life presuppose that such life is possible. But it does not follow that it is" [3].

As a result of my rebuttal of pro's second argument, his third argument does not need to be addressed. He uses the previous argument as one of its premises; since that premise has been shown to be false, his argument does not follow and is invalid.

So that should do it. I have adequately refuted all of pro's claims. I have also established a case of my own, although I will be going into more detail with it in the next round. Again, I thank pro for accepting and look forward to his response.

Sources:
1 - http://www.coppit.org...
2 -
3 - http://www.infidels.org...
Billdekel

Pro

OK. Thanks for a speedy response.


Opening question

1) Con states that there is lack of extraordinary evidence for god

But it is only Con's opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no evidence for God.

2) Con seems to beg the question here. I can say "The lights on my house work fine without presupposing electricity"

3) Basically an argument from bad design. I agree we do live in a fallen world as a result of sin. God did not design organisms to be perfect. To do so would be to create an equal of Himself.


Argument from Design

Unnatural things do not require a creator, and thus you have created a false analogy. A computer requires a creator because it cannot be made by natural means. But other, natural things, like rain, happen of their own accord. A creator for these things is unnecessary.

You're implying that unless humans design something, we can't infer design.

Zero-Energy universe


This is nothing but a mathematical trick to try to get around the 1rst Law of Thermodynamics. It invokes negative energy, but such a concept violates the very concept of energy, since it would require a force to push a mass in the direction opposite to the direction in which energy is applied. In other words, this proposes a type of energy that manifests behaviors in a way opposite to what is meant by energy.

this means that gravity (which has negative energy) and matter (positive) cancel each other out.

This concept is seriously flawed. Below is a refutation[1]

"Mathematically energy is:


Where,

ΔE= Change in Energy

\vec F= Force Vector

\vec d= Vector Distance Over Which the Force Acts

θ= Angle between F and d vectors

If the force is negative then the mass is pushed in a negative direction.

W = (-F)(-d) = Fd

The result is that the work is still positive. For work to be negative the force would have to push the mass in the opposite direction from which it is applied.

W = F(-d)

The force of gravity is negative as a vector since it is always pulling a mass down. So the formula for gravitational force can best be written as:


F = gravitational force.

M1 = mass 1.

m2 = mass 2.

r = distance between the center of each mass.

G = the gravitational constant.

The potential energy (P) of a gravitational field is obtained by integrating the force of gravity over the distance from ∞ to ro.

ro = radius of gravitating body.

∞ = infinity.

Such that:

Since G, m1, m2 and ro are all positive, P is also positive. Since P = potential energy, the potential energy of a gravitational field is positive and not negative. This falsifies the idea that gravitational potential energy is negative energy. Work as been done on The negative effects of energy, showing that it would produce some effects that have not been observed in gravity.[2]

The final nail in the coffin of the notion that the total amount of energy in the universe is zero is that theoretically negative energy must be followed by a larger amount of positive energy so the positive energy must always be larger than negative energy. As a result the total energy of the universe must be > 0.


The other problem is that empty space and/or the quantum vacuum aren’t nothing; they’re something. So Krauss’ book does absolutely ‘nothing’ to answer Leibniz’s question, and leaves his readers no better off than they were before where the issue of the origin of the universe is concerned.

If these quantum fluccutions produced the singularly known as the big bang then where did the vacuum come from?

Below is from a New York times review of the book by David Albert is a professor of philosophy at Columbia and the author of “Quantum Mechanics and Experience.” [3]

"Where, for starters, are the laws of quantum mechanics themselves supposed to have come from? Krauss is more or less upfront, as it turns out, about not having a clue about that."

"[T]he fundamental laws of this theory ... have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place."

"[V]acuum states — no less than giraffes or ... solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-­theoretical equivalent to [nothing] ... is the simple absence of the fields! .... And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence ... as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence ... as my fingers rearrange themselves."

Krauss complains about the 'the intellectual bankruptcy' of those who tell him that he can't refer to these vacuum states as nothing. Alpert says:

"as far as I can see, ... Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right."


TAG

Con doesn't answer the question proposed by TAG. How can an atheist account for the laws of logic

I would like to point out that pro's entire second argument was plagiarized from this website:

Genetic fallacy and Con seems to be trying to remove any of my credibility . Its irrelevant. But I didn't get it from that website. The origin of the argument goes back far. I've read it in books and in schools studying in apologetics is where I first learned this argument if you must know.

Why do 'logical absolutes' prove a God?

I've explained it in my opening argument
"Thoughts reflect a mind"

Even if pro wants to argue that these laws presuppose a God, that would not mean that God follows from them.

This conclusion fails to understand that logic is not separate from God's nature, but is a reflection of God's nature. Since God's nature does not change, the principles of logic cannot change.

God's self-existence and necessary attributes are consistent with the first Law of logic, the Law of Identity, which states that something is what it is: A = A. Since the TAG argument ultimately concludes that God exists (God = God), then his attributes, which are dependent and necessarily a part of his existence, also exist. You cannot separate God's attributes from God himself, since his attributes exist because God exists. By way of analogy, I am six feet tall. My height (or whatever height I might be) is an attribute of my existence as a full grown man, and it cannot be separated from what I am. Of course height can be altered, but "height" cannot be removed from my physical existence. It is a part of my existence.

The critic fails to understand the TAG argument properly.

So in the next round I hope my opponent wont evade the question proposed by TAG.

[1]http://creationwiki.org...
[2]http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
[3]http://www.nytimes.com...[]
Debate Round No. 2
Mathaelthedestroyer

Con

I thank my opponent for his timely response. I'll get started.

1. "But it is only Con's opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no evidence for God." I'm not claiming to know all the evidence for or against God. It is not just my opinion that there is no extraordinary evidence. (This distinction is important. There is some evidence, tenuous as it may be, but none of it is extraordinary.) Keep in mind that you accepted the burden of proof for this debate. You are the one who needs to show that there is extraordinary evidence, which you have thus far failed to do.
2. "Con seems to beg the question here. I can say "The lights on my house work fine without presupposing electricity." That's actually not true, and you have created another false analogy. Electricity is presupposed in this case, because your light could not work without it. My point was that the universe functions perfectly well without presupposing God. You have yet to show any reason for it to require God to work; assuming you can do that, you will then need to explain why the Judaeo-Christian God is necessary for this, and not any other 'prime mover.'
3. "Basically an argument from bad design. I agree we do live in a fallen world as a result of sin. God did not design organisms to be perfect. To do so would be to create an equal of Himself." God is apparently a very inept designer, then. My argument isn't just that the universe isn't perfect; it's that the universe, our world, and our lives are ruled by randomness, chance, and seemingly purposeless and senseless destruction and chaos. Why would God, an all-powerful being, fine-tune the universe and then put our galaxy on a collision course with another galaxy? To try to work God into this equation, one must fall back on the unfalsifiable "We don't know" or "It's part of his plan" argument.

Arguments from design:
"You're implying that unless humans design something, we can't infer design." No, I'm not. I'm implying that it's illogical to try to infer design from things that show no evidence of being designed. The argument from design is very weak, and fails for multiple reasons:
1) The entire argument is fallacious. It can be refuted like this:
Some things that look designed do not have a designer.
From 1, it is not the case that everything that looks designed has a designer.
From 2, the second premise of the argument from inferred design fails.
2) It fails to account for objective evidence:
Many things that look designed can be observed during the process of their creation processes.
Many of those creation proccesses will involve a designer.
Many of those creation processes will not involve a designer.
From 3, the second premise of the argument from inferred design fails.
In other words, we can watch an airplane get built and observe its designer(s). Likewise, we can watch evolution by natural selection take place and observe that there is no designer.
3) Infinite probability:
Assume the Argument from Inferred Design to be true
All designers look designed
All designers are more improbable than their designs
From 1 and 2, there is an infinte regress that must be terminated
From 3 and 4, the termination point of that regress must be infinitely improbable
From 5, this termination point would be impossible
Therefore, the Argument from Inferred Design must be false.
In other words, once we regress back to God, we cannot go any further because he is infinity improbably. Since he is infinitely improbable, his existence is impossible.
(Refutations 1 - 3 all came from source 1.)

Zero-Energy universe:
"This is nothing but a mathematical trick to try to get around the 1rst Law of Thermodynamics." It does not do this. In fact, it accounts for the first law of Thermodynamics. This is a quote taken from the Astronomy Society of the Pacific: "Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg"s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called 'virtual particle' pairs are known as 'quantum fluctuations.'" [2]

"The result is that the work is still positive. For work to be negative the force would have to push the mass in the opposite direction from which it is applied." Wrong again. Another quote from the same website easily disproves this: "All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero. It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth"s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero." [2]

"The other problem is that empty space and/or the quantum vacuum aren"t nothing; they"re something." Thank you for reiterating my point. Krauss's point is that 'nothing' in this sense actually refers to something with zero net-energy. Nothing further to add here.

The quotes from David Albert do nothing to disprove Krauss's theory or my assertions. He simply states that it does not account for 'why the world should have these fields.' It doesn't attempt to account for this. Such a question is one of philosophy, which is fitting considering David Albert is a professor of philosophy. I think we can safely assume that he knows less about theoretical physics than Krauss, who is an award-winning theoretical physicist.

I'm running out of room so I'll try to summarize the last few arguments:

"How can an atheist account for the laws of logic?" We don't need to. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. However, the laws of logic are 'absolute' because they are based in the world that we live in as it is. Saying "I have a round square in my pocket" is illogical because that is not the way our world is. Round squares do not exist. But why does God follow from this? Just because our world is a certain way does not necessitate a deity. Pro fails to establish this connection.

"This conclusion fails to understand that logic is not separate from God's nature, but is a reflection of God's nature. Since God's nature does not change, the principles of logic cannot change." This is circular and is not supported by evidence. Prove that logic is a reflection of God's nature. As I have said, the principle of logic do not change because there are certain things in our world that do not change. I still fail to see how God follows from this.

Keep in mind that it is not my responsibility here to explain why logic absolutes exist and why they don't (although I have tried to anyway). It is, however, your job to prove a connection between them and God. So far, all you have done is list some logical absolutes, assumed God, and then tried to connect them. You have not shown a link between the two and you have not provided a reason for assuming God in the first place. Remember the burden of proof you agreed to.

And I do apologize for some of these responses being a little terse. As I said, I am running out of room here, but I feel I got the point across well enough.

Sources:
1 - http://rhetoricsanspareil.wordpress.com...
2 - http://www.astrosociety.org...
Billdekel

Pro

1. When you claim "there is a lack of evidence for God" you're stating an absolute. Con appeals to population by saying "its not just my opinion"

2. Electricity is presupposed in this case, because your light could not work without it

Con isn't getting it. We can come up with how this light works without electricity. That doesn't mean electricity isn't there, but we can say it doesn't work all we want. It won't cause the lights to cease to work

3. The answer is in my response. We live in a fallen world of sin.


"No, I'm not. I'm implying that it's illogical to try to infer design from things that show no evidence of being designed."

So if I come across a building or a painting and all I have is one of those. How can I know they were designed? Sure we know other buildings are designed,but what about the one your at? What is the evidence that one was designed? There is no evidence that a random building in the middle of nowhere is designed other than the building itself.

1) The entire argument is fallacious. It can be refuted like this:
Some things that look designed do not have a designer.
From 1, it is not the case that everything that looks designed has a designer.
From 2, the second premise of the argument from inferred design fails.

But those that look designed are not information, its patterns. Nature can produce patterns all they want,but it has never produced information. In fact such patterns fail the ID design filter and as such are not considered evidence of design.

In other words, we can watch an airplane get built and observe its designer(s). Likewise, we can watch evolution by natural selection take place and observe that there is no designer.


So if you didn't see an airplane get built you wouldn't know it had a designer? If you come across an airplane,building,painting whatever the only evidence you have is the object itself.

3. This is basically a "who created God" argument. By definition He is not created. God exists outside of space,time,matter,energy and causality. So logically causality doesn't apply to him

Zero Energy Universe

Astro society was describing what this hypothesis is. Which helps my case. As I described before VP doesn't come from nothing at all.

So what's the solution? To redefine the word "nothing" to mean "something". So to say something can come from nothing is actually to say something can come from something.

Wrong again. Another quote from the same website easily disproves this:


There are effects of negative energy have not been observed in gravity.[1][2]

TAG

Con say he don't need to account for the laws of logic,but this is borrowing from a theistic worldview to use logic. Con says the logical absolutes are the result of our material world

Logical Absolutes are not found in atoms, motion, heat, under rocks, etc.
Logical Absolutes cannot be photographed, frozen, weighed, or measured.
Logical Absolutes are not the product of the physical universe, since that would mean they were contingent on atoms, motion, heat, etc., and that their nature was dependent on physical existence.

If their nature were dependent upon physical existence, they would cease to exist when the physical universe ceases to exist.If they were properties of the universe then they could be measured the same way heat, motion, mass, etc., are measured.

Since they cannot be measured, they are not properties of the universe. But, if the universe did not exist, logical absolutes are still true.

For example, if the universe did not exist, it would still be true that something cannot bring itself into existence and that if A=B and B=C, then A=C. The condition of the universe does not effect these truths. For example, if the universe did not exist, it would still be true that something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time.
Therefore, Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world.

Prove that logic is a reflection of God's nature. As I have said, the principle of logic do not change because there are certain things in our world that do not change. I still fail to see how God follows from this

The opening argument did. Show a connection between God and Absolutes

Thoughts reflect the mind
  1. A person's thoughts are the product of that person's mind.
  2. A mind that is irrational, will produce irrational thoughts.
  3. A mind that is rational, will produce rational thoughts.
  4. It seems fair to say that an absolutely perfect mind would produce perfect thoughts.
  5. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then it seems proper to say that they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.
  6. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God since a physical brain is not transcendent by nature because it is limited to physical space, and God is, by definition, transcendent in nature.

In my conclusion

Con seemed to state the zero energy hypothesis like it was fact and defined "nothing" as "something"

Sources
1. http://web.archive.org...
2. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net...



Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mathaelthedestroyer 4 years ago
Mathaelthedestroyer
None of my debates get voted on anymore.

Lul i suk
Posted by Mathaelthedestroyer 4 years ago
Mathaelthedestroyer
We all have to do it eventually. I'll be with you in spirit (and maybe votes).
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
It will be my turn at the god-bat, soon. I'm wracking my brains trying to think of a clever new way to defeat the almighty.
Posted by Mathaelthedestroyer 4 years ago
Mathaelthedestroyer
Thank you, Jordan. I now accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior.
Posted by Jordan56 4 years ago
Jordan56
Posted by Mathaelthedestroyer 4 years ago
Mathaelthedestroyer
My question was what is the difference between a try-omni God and the Judaeo-Christian God? Doesn't the very idea of such a God come from the bible and Christian doctrine? If not, where does it come from? (I hope I'm not coming off as rude, I'm not trying to be.)

Also, I seem to have forgotten my manners. Once again, I'd like to thank pro for taking this debate. He made some good arguments and kept it exciting and informative.
Posted by stubs 4 years ago
stubs
What question would you like answered bro?
Posted by Mathaelthedestroyer 4 years ago
Mathaelthedestroyer
Ah, I forgot there were only three rounds. I wish I had been able to conclude a bit more, but this will have to do.
Posted by Mathaelthedestroyer 4 years ago
Mathaelthedestroyer
Stubs: I am new to this website. You still didn't answer my question.

DeFool: I am very much open to suggestions as to how to make this topic less repetitive; as I said in round one (which most people here seem to have ignored), I'm aware that this topic is pretty played-out, especially on this website. Suggestions are welcome. If you do think of one, let me know. Someone has already accepted this debate, but I'm always up for a challenge if you can think of one later.

Jacob_Apologist: Sorry, but someone has already accepted it. But to address your point, Craig's argument doesn't follow. He makes a good point in saying 'I do not believe (p)' is different than 'I believe (not P)'; I made this distinction myself. Where his argument falls apart is in saying that atheism proposes 'I believe (not P)'; this is not the case.
Posted by Jacob_Apologist 4 years ago
Jacob_Apologist
I am for debate, except if u clear your error that ur position of "God does not exist" doesnt hold BoP. That's simply false. If u held agnosticism which u dont, then you'd have no burden of proof. read these 2 or 3 articles written by an honest atheist. If u have ur position that "It's false that God exists" then both have equal burden. http://www.evilbible.com...

==========
Dr Craig states

There is an important logical difference between believing that there is no God and not believing that there is a God. Compare my saying , "I believe that there is no gold on Mars" with my saying "I do not believe that there is gold on Mars." If I have no opinion on the matter, then I do not believe that there is gold on Mars, and I do not believe that there is no gold on Mars. There"s a difference between saying, "I do not believe (p)" and "I believe (not-p)." Logically where you place the negation makes a world of difference.

But where your atheist friends err is in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.

There"s a history behind this. Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth century were promoting the so-called "presumption of atheism." At face value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists.

So understood, such an alleged presumption is clearly mistaken. For the assertion that "There is no God" is just as much a claim to knowledge as is the assertion that "There is a God." Therefore, the former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. It is the agnostic who makes no knowledge claim at all with respect to God"s existence. He confesses that he doesn"t know whether there is a God or whether there is no God.
No votes have been placed for this debate.