The Instigator
Justinisthecrazy
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
meespr
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

There is no 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 6 votes the winner is...
Justinisthecrazy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,732 times Debate No: 7209
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (6)

 

Justinisthecrazy

Pro

I will be the affirmative or be proving that there is no God.

America, founded in secularism as a beacon of eighteenth century enlightenment, is becoming the victim of religious politics, a circumstance that would have horrified the Founding Fathers. The political ascendancy today values embryonic cells over adult people. It obsesses about gay marriage, ahead of genuinely important issues that actually make a difference to the world. It gains crucial electoral support from a religious constituency whose grip on reality is so tenuous that they expect to be 'raptured' up to heaven, leaving their clothes as empty as their minds. More extreme specimens actually long for a world war, which they identify as the 'Armageddon' that is to presage the Second Coming. Sam Harris, in his new short book, Letter to a Christian Nation, hits the bull's-eye as usual:

It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver-lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen: the return of Christ . . .Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the U.S. government actually believed that the world was about to end and that its ending would be glorious. The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this, purely on the basis of religious dogma, should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency.

Contention 1) Heisenberg's uncertainty principal

Neccesary a god is a being that is worth worshipping, so if there is no being worth worshipping there cannot be a god.

Not any of the existing religions can provide such a god. How do we know if there are no undiscovered beings worthy our submission? Well if there is a being that has either failed or not tried to communicate with us that being is not worth worshipping either, so the ontological evidence against god holds, even without complete knowledge of the world.

There is a test, based on the ontological evidence against god, that you can do to try the existence of god. Pray, and ask god to provide you with a clear proof for his existence within a week. After that week, if you have got a proof that god exists, send me the evidence. If not, there are only three reasons I can think of that are plausible: (1) God does not exist, (2) God does not want to or (3) God can't give you this evidence. Because of the ontological evidence, alternative (2) and (3) are not worth your worship and thus they equal alternative (1). So if you get no response there is no god.
The meaning of the word existence
What do we mean by existence? The very definition for existence is that a thing is said to exist if it relates in some way to some other thing. That is, things exist in relation to each other. For us, that means that something is part of our system ('The known world'). God is defined to be infinite, in which case it is not possible for there to be anything other than god because "infinite" is all-inclusive. But if there is nothing other than god then either god cannot be said to exist for the reason just explained, or god is the known world, in which case, by definition, god is not a god.

Contention 2) Occams Razor
Occam's razor was formulated by William of Occam (1285-1349) and says: "Non est ponenda pluralites sive necessitate" or in english: "Do not multiply entities unless necessarily". It is a principle for scientific labour which means that one should use a simple explanation with a few explanatory premises before a more complex one.

Let's say that everything must be created, and that was done by an omnipotent god. A god which stands above time, space, moral and existence, which is self containing and in it self has it's own cause. This entity can surely be replaced by the known world. The world stands above time, space, moral, existence, is self containing and in it has it's own meaning. Most theists agree that god has a nature. Then we must raise the question, who created god's nature? If we just accept that god has a nature and exists without a cause, why not say that the known world just is and that the laws of physics are what they are, without a cause?

God is not really an explanation, only a non-explanation. It is impossible to gain information from non-information so God as an explanation is a dead end. When we have said that the reason for something is that 'god did it that way' there is no way to understand it any further. We just shrug our shoulders and accept things as they are. To explain the unknown by god is only to explain how it happened, not why. If we are to investigate the world and build our views of life from the world, we cannot assume a god. Because adding god as an explanation leaves as many, if not more questions than it explains, god has to be removed with Occam's razor if we are serious in investigating the world.
Some things are impossible to do

There are things that are impossible to do. For example nobody can cover a two-dimensional surface with two-dimensional circles, without making them overlap. It is impossible to add the numbers two and two and get 666. You can not go back in time (without passing an infinite entropy barrier). The number of things that are impossible to do are almost infinite. If god were to be almighty he would be able to do them, but it's impossible to do so.
Some people say that he can only do things that are logically possible to do, but what is? Is it logically possible to walk on water? Is it logically possible to rise from the dead? Is it logically possible to stand above time, space and all other dimensions - and still exist? I'd say that everything which violates the laws of physics are logically impossible and thus omnipotence is logically impossible. Besides if omnipotence is a relative quality there is no way to tell omnipotence from non-omnipotence. For omnipotence to be a valid expression it must be absolute, but we have no objective criteria to measure omnipotence so the word itself is useless.
Omnipotence is impossible due to paradoxes
Another way to disprove the almighty god is that omnipotence leads to paradoxes. Can god make a rock that is too heavy for him to carry? Can god build a wall that even he can't tear down?
Also, if god knows everything, he knows what he will do in the "future" (in any dimension, not necessary the time dimension). He must have known that from the very start of his own existence. Thus god's actions are predestined. God is tied by faith, he has no free will. If god has no free will god is not omnipotent. Another way to put it is that to be able to make plans and decisions one must act over time. If god stands above time he can not do that and has no free will. Indeed, if god stands above all dimensions god is dimensionless - a singularity, nothing, void!
Besides there can exist no free wills at all if god is almighty. If you had a free will, god wouldn't know what you would do tomorrow and wouldn't be omnipotent.

3) 7 day Creation is Non Existant
The myths of Creationism
OK, whether we take the story literally or metaphorically, whether we accept that the "seven days" are actual periods of 24 hrs, or that they represent much longer periods of time (billions of years), there are problems with the order in which the Genesis account says things were created in.

"it violently contradicts what the astronomers, geologists, and evolutionists tell us about the order of appearance of things on Earth and the time at which they appeared. [...] The table below highlights some of the more important astronomical and paleontological events pertinent to our current study."
Big Bang15,000 million years, Birth of the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon4600 million years, First Dinosaurs and Mammal-like Reptiles; Origin of Mammals248 million years ago.
meespr

Con

Hello, and good luck to my opponent.

After reading the opening statement of his argument, I am convinced of two things: 1) my opponent undertook this debate at least in part to disparage faith. 2) My opponent posesses a distressing lack of understanding of the state of American Socio-Politics as well as the Christian mind, as does the author, Sam Harris, that he quotes. As I continued to read, it became apparent that my opponent has no real solid evidence that there is no God, only misinformed, opinionated, nonsensical vitrol. There is little to disprove here, mostly unrefined opinions typical of someone who stands on the shoulders of thinkers and regurgitates witless circular logic without examining it completely for themselves. Now, if my opponent wishes to abandon his opening "prison rules" debate style and continue this in a civilized fashion, I will be most pleased to oblige.

1) Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle- has nothing to do with the subject of this debate. It is an advanced concept common in quantum physics, which if anything, bring a great shadow of doubt on the laws of physics that you use to disprove the existence of God.

The supposed "test" of the existence of God is flawed in it's principle. God does not need to prove he exists to us. We all know it somewhere in the back of our minds. Which explains why a vast majority of mankind believes in a Supreme Being of some form or another. The interpretation of the test results are jaded by my opponents desire for God not to exist. God showed His worthiness of our praise in his creation of everything (including my opponent), and by His offer of salvation.

"God is defined to be infinite, in which case it is not possible for there to be anything other than god because 'infinite' is all-inclusive. But if there is nothing other than god then either god cannot be said to exist for the reason just explained, or god is the known world, in which case, by definition, god is not a god."

This argument doesn't make sense because his linchpin assumption(the definition of "infinite") is incorrect.

Infinite- adj. (1) immeasurably great. (2) indefinitely or exceedingly great. (3) unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc. (4) unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless. (dictionary.com)

At no point, did the term "all-inclusive" come up. God is infinite, but that doesn't mean He is the universe. He was before the universe and will be after the universe. The argument is based on fallacy.

2) Occam's Razor- The practical upshot of this is "the simplest explanation is probably correct", or "keep it simple". SO... Let's compare: Pro's stance- The universe as it exists today is the result of a series of billions of coincidences that are so bizarrely unlikely, it is an incredible coincidence that we exist today. Con's stance- God willed it, and it was so. The assertation that crediting God with something is a non-explanation is only half-correct. Pro fails to understand the implication that "God did it that way because God wanted it that way". Which is a perfectly acceptable "why", considering God is all-knowing and all-powerful. We can't fathom the reasoning of God, and so the "fact of" is acceptable. Occam's Razor stands in favor of God.

As to the impossibility of things, these things are impossible for you and me based on our understanding of the rules that govern our universe. But, as stated above, God is not the universe. I think the concept of "omnipotent" is lost on my opponent. This means that there is NOTHING that God cannot do.

And regarding paradoxes in omnipotence, again, they are based on our understanding of the rules that govern our universe. Just because we can't understand it doesn't mean that it isn't possible.

"Also, if god knows everything, he knows what he will do in the 'future' (in any dimension, not necessary the time dimension). He must have known that from the very start of his own existence. Thus god's actions are predestined. God is tied by faith, he has no free will. If god has no free will god is not omnipotent. Another way to put it is that to be able to make plans and decisions one must act over time. If god stands above time he can not do that and has no free will. Indeed, if god stands above all dimensions god is dimensionless - a singularity, nothing, void!
Besides there can exist no free wills at all if god is almighty. If you had a free will, god wouldn't know what you would do tomorrow and wouldn't be omnipotent."

Another argument held together by chewing gum, duct tape and a desire for God to not exist (for what reason, I can only guess). Again, just because a superdimensional (not dimensionless) God doesn't conform to our perceptions (four dimensions) doesn't mean that His existence is void.

There's a lot of things I don't understand. That doesn't mean that everything that I don't understand is a figment of my imagination.

3) Yes. The 7-day story contradicts violently with the scientific "explanation" of our origins. Because the scientific "explanation" was cooked up for the sole reason of supplanting faith-based creation stories. There was no evidence there. Just numbers and that the 7-day creation "violently contradicts" the big bang theory as if those words were supposed to trigger some form of pavlovian response against Creationism. My opponent failed to prove anything by his arguments.

So... based on the provided arguments, the statement that "there is no God" is thoroughly disproved.
Debate Round No. 1
Justinisthecrazy

Pro

My opponent falsely realizes what Occam's Razor says
Occam's razor is probably one of the strongest arguments here.

It states one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.

Though the principle may seem rather trivial, it is essential for model building because of what is known as the "underdetermination of theories by data". For a given set of observations or data, there is always an infinite number of possible models explaining those same data. This is because a model normally represents an infinite number of possible cases, of which the observed cases are only a finite subset. The non-observed cases are inferred by postulating general rules covering both actual and potential observations.

For example, through two data points in a diagram you can always draw a straight line, and induce that all further observations will lie on that line. However, you could also draw an infinite variety of the most complicated curves passing through those same two points, and these curves would fit the empirical data just as well. Only Occam's razor would in this case guide you in choosing the "straight" relation as best candidate model. A similar reasoning can be made for n data points lying in any kind of distribution.

Occam's razor is especially important for universal models such as the ones developed in General Systems Theory, mathematics or philosophy, because there the subject domain is of an unlimited complexity. If one starts with too complicated foundations for a theory that potentially encompasses the universe, the chances of getting any manageable model are very slim indeed. Moreover, the principle is sometimes the only remaining guideline when entering domains of such a high level of abstraction that no concrete tests or observations can decide between rival models. In mathematical modelling of systems, the principle can be made more concrete in the form of the principle of uncertainty maximization: from your data, induce that model which minimizes the number of additional assumptions.

This principle is part of epistemology, and can be motivated by the requirement of maximal simplicity of cognitive models. However, its significance might be extended to metaphysics if it is interpreted as saying that simpler models are more likely to be correct than complex ones, in other words, that "nature" prefers simplicity.

I believe unless I misinterpreted that arguement helps you becuase it is result of series of billions of considences. that reminds me of the story of the preacher. One day a man asked a preacher does god exist. The preacher replies come see me later today. The man sees him later that day and the preacher says look at that poem over there. The man looks and reads it and says what a beautiful poem. The preacher says I didn't make it I just spelt ink. The man replies statistically speaking that is not impossible and does some mathmatical function I do not fully understand. But the point being that math and science have proven that these "coincedences" are how the world/people were made. But once again were not arguing creation we are arguing whether or not there is a god.

You fail to recognize that the evidence of no god outweighs the evidence that there is a god. well by using your logic of denying the existence of a god means that there is a god is the same logic that means you need to spend money to make money. and then you end up wasting 500k on something but sense you need to spend money to make money you therefore did not spend any. Thus making an invalid point.

So by your logic everything has a creator unless I am mistaken.Than who created god? If god is outside of human dimension why would he interfere with the humans? for him to be outside of human dimension god would've had to have already existed but that is very unlikely because as you previously stated everything has a creator. thus making the fact that everything had a creator void

You state that my prayer test may be skewed because I do not wish for the existance of God to be proven but that arguement can neither be won nor lost because you can say that "sign" was of God and I can "say" it was not. I will drop that point as you have not won but have negated it.

Nobody really believes in god

Schopenhauer once said something like:

"Man can do anything he wants, but he can not want whatever he wants."

My thesis is that people who claim to believe in god do not really do so. They just wish to believe in god. They somehow feel that their lives are meaningless without god, so they choose to close their eyes to evidence against the existence of god. The christian view is well expressed by Cardinal Ratzinger:

"Religious liberty can not justify freedom for divergence. This freedom does not aim at any freedom relative truth, but concerns the free descicion for a person to, according to his moral inclinations accept the truth." (The times, June 27 1990, p9) [Translated to Swedish in the Swedish version of (Baigenth, Leigh, 1991) and then translated back to english by me]

It's as clear as it can be! For a christian you accept the "truth" according to your moral, and then have to be strong in your faith to keep your believes. You decide a priori what to believe and then try to convince yourself and others that it is true. But theists don't really believe, because to believe something is to take it for true, and just like in Nazareth's song Sold my soul there is no sign of god in the world. When you have the evidence for and against something your sub-conscious works on it and makes a conclusion. The process can't be affected by your will, only delayed or suppressed, which will lead to psychoses, and those are far more common among (catholic) priests than any other group..

I have personal experience of this believing what you want to believe. When I was a child I believed in a lot of crazy things. I thought my stuffed animals were intelligent. I believed in Santa Claus. I thought there were monsters under my bed at night. I even believed in god after I heard some of the tales from the old testament. Then I became older and realized that these things weren't true. When I look back I don't understand how I could believe in them, it must have been that I wanted to do so. (Except for the monsters, which had to do with fear of the dark)

When many religious people are confronted with criticism of their religion they convert to atheism or agnosticism. Examples of people who became critical to the dogmas of christianity are Charles Darwin (Darwin, 1958), Dan Barker (Barker, 19??), Ernest Renan plus many former "Catholic modernists" in the 19th century such as Alfred Loisy and Antonio Fogazzaro (Baigenth, Leigh, 1991). The Catholic modernism evolved in the late 19th century and was banned in 1907 by the Vatican (Baigenth, Leigh, 1991). These people are to me clear evidence that an enlightened person will after considering the facts, reject christianity and other religions that contain deities.

Note: This is not the "Plead to authority" fallacy. I'm talking people here, who were trying to prove the existence of god and turned atheists. They did not want to do this, but had to after reading a lot of books and doing a lot of thinking on the subject.

Believing there's no God s
meespr

Con

Regarding Occam's Razor, my opponent argues that I misunderstand. That Occam's Razor is not "The simplest answer is probably right", but that: "It states one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to 'shave off' those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies... For example, through two data points in a diagram you can always draw a straight line, and induce that all further observations will lie on that line. However, you could also draw an infinite variety of the most complicated curves passing through those same two points, and these curves would fit the empirical data just as well. Only Occam's razor would in this case guide you in choosing the 'straight' relation as best candidate model. A similar reasoning can be made for n data points lying in any kind of distribution."

I fail to see how, in the light of my opponents example, the existence of God is not the straight line and the "billions of coincidences leading to the world we live in today" theory is not the curvy, highly improbable line. In fact, without using as many words, that is more or less exactly what I said in my previous argument.

As to Science proving those coincidences, it's all based on our less-than-perfect interpretation of data through the prism of our likely incomplete understanding of the laws that govern our universe.

My opponent continues, "You fail to recognize that the evidence of no god outweighs the evidence that there is a god". I rebut that this is because of a concept called "faith". God demands faith from us. Proof denies faith. Ergo, God will not prove He exists beyond what He's already done. The evidence seems to support a "no god" point of view, but really the evidence is normally inconclusive and thus a scientist's natural bias against the idea of the supernatural wins the day and colors the lack of evidence as disproof. The rest of my opponent's argument didn't seem to make much sense. At no point in my previous argument did I say anything from which you can justifiably extrapolate "denying the existence of a god means that there is a god is the same logic that means you need to spend money to make money. and then you end up wasting 500k on something but sense you need to spend money to make money you therefore did not spend any. Thus making an invalid point." God doesn't exist because someone said He didn't. God exists regardless. Thus rendering my opponents argument invalid.

Everything we percieve and everything we don't percieve was created by God. No one created God. God always was and always will be. Infinite, if you will. Without beginning or end.

"My thesis is that people who claim to believe in god do not really do so. They just wish to believe in god. They somehow feel that their lives are meaningless without god, so they choose to close their eyes to evidence against the existence of god", argues my opponent. I argue that belief is voluntary. You can choose to believe or not to believe. Wanting to believe is not possible because as soon as you genuinely want to believe, you believe. Just like you choose to ignore the holes in your "disproof" of God.

By the way, Catholic priests are the way they are because humans are social, sexual creatures and chastity is not a natural lifestyle. Living an acetic lifestyle where one's natural impulses are considered sinful will eventually drive you nuts.

You didn't WANT to believe there were monsters under your bed, but you did. Then one day you just... Didn't believe anymore. There is no wanting to believe. There is belief and disbelief.

By the way, Alfred Loisy was excommunicated for heresy and didn't try to reconcile but rather gave up on his faith (not the Church, but his faith); Darwin's initial observations for the Origin of Species was made under the delirium of what sounds like a severe case of the flu, and besides he was a Unitarian, which is the beginning of a slippery slope into atheism anyway; Dan Barker was heavily involved with atheist intellectuals (which if you are unable to hold you own against them in a debate, as I suspect he wasn't, you quickly begin to question the validity of your views); Ernest Renan abandoned his faith due to grammatical differences in sections of the book of Isaiah, which is a petty reason to give up on something; Antonio Fogazzaro actually was a Christian for his entire period of renown, just separate from the Catholic church. There is nothing wrong with that, I consider myself estranged from the Catholic Church yet I am a Christian.

Again, no solid evidence of the non-existence of God has been presented. The resolution is overturned.
Debate Round No. 2
Justinisthecrazy

Pro

Rebuttals

When many religious people are confronted with criticism of their religion they convert to atheism or agnosticism. Examples of people who became critical to the dogmas of christianity are Charles Darwin (Darwin, 1958), Dan Barker (Barker, 19??), Ernest Renan plus many former "Catholic modernists" in the 19th century such as Alfred Loisy and Antonio Fogazzaro (Baigenth, Leigh, 1991). The Catholic modernism evolved in the late 19th century and was banned in 1907 by the Vatican (Baigenth, Leigh, 1991). These people are to me clear evidence that an enlightened person will after considering the facts, reject christianity and other religions that contain deities

I argue that the Big Bang was caused by natural means. What was the identity of this cause? We don't know, but we know that it's possible:

1. Virtual particles

Virtual particles show the feasibility of things being uncaused, or something coming from nothing.

2. Hartle-Hawking state

The Hartle-Hawking state is a wave function for the Universe. Being part of the theoretical and developing branch of quantum cosmology/gravity, the Hartle-Hawking state is a function for the initial conditions of the universe, it could explain how the Universe started. To make things even better, the Hartle-Hawking state complies with the Wheeler-deWitt equation, which is basically a pre-requisite for any equation in quantum cosmology

First, most of the traditional arguments for God's existence, from Aquinas on, are easily demolished. Several of them, such as the First Cause argument, work by setting up an infinite regress which God is wheeled out to terminate. But we are never told why God is magically able to terminate regresses while needing no explanation himself. To be sure, we do need some kind of explanation for the origin of all things. Physicists and cosmologists are hard at work on the problem. But whatever the answer — a random quantum fluctuation or a Hawking/Penrose singularity or whatever we end up calling it — it will be simple. Complex, statistically improbable things, by definition, don't just happen; they demand an explanation in their own right. They are impotent to terminate regresses, in a way that simple things are not. The first cause cannot have been an intelligence — let alone an intelligence that answers prayers and enjoys being worshipped. Intelligent, creative, complex, statistically improbable things come late into the universe, as the product of evolution or some other process of gradual escalation from simple beginnings. They come late into the universe and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it.

Another of Aquinas' efforts, the Argument from Degree, is worth spelling out, for it epitomises the characteristic flabbiness of theological reasoning. We notice degrees of, say, goodness or temperature, and we measure them, Aquinas said, by reference to a maximum:

Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus, as fire, which is the maximum of heat, is the cause of all hot things . . . Therefore, there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
That's an argument? You might as well say that people vary in smelliness but we can make the judgment only by reference to a perfect maximum of conceivable smelliness. Therefore there must exist a pre-eminently peerless stinker, and we call him God. Or substitute any dimension of comparison you like, and derive an equivalently fatuous conclusion. That's theology.
Of course, this all presupposes that the God we are talking about is a personal intelligence such as Yahweh, Allah, Baal, Wotan, Zeus or Lord Krishna. If, by 'God', you mean love, nature, goodness, the universe, the laws of physics, the spirit of humanity, or Planck's constant, none of the above applies.
meespr

Con

"When many religious people are confronted with criticism of their religion they convert to atheism or agnosticism. Examples of people who became critical to the dogmas of christianity are Charles Darwin (Darwin, 1958), Dan Barker (Barker, 19??), Ernest Renan plus many former "Catholic modernists" in the 19th century such as Alfred Loisy and Antonio Fogazzaro (Baigenth, Leigh, 1991). The Catholic modernism evolved in the late 19th century and was banned in 1907 by the Vatican (Baigenth, Leigh, 1991). These people are to me clear evidence that an enlightened person will after considering the facts, reject christianity and other religions that contain deities"

I imagine there was supposed to be a rebut in there somewhere, because this is simply a restatement of a previous argument. These were people of weak faith. It happens from time to time, same as many scientists become religious. The point is rather moot, as the exchange more or less balances out.

The big bang theory is somewhat off-topic, but I'll oblige by sticking it into Occam's Razor. Virtual particles and Hartle-Hawking state compliance with Wheeler-deWitt equations... There's a lot of numbers in that. A lot of variables. A lot of complexity. Then compare that with "God willed it, and it was so". The simlpest answer is obviously "God willed it". My opponent then argues that we are never told why God is magically able to terminate regresses while needing no explanation himself. Hmm... Probably because He's God. He is omnipotent and eternal. The answer is "because He said so." It's no more for us to question it further than it is for a car salesman to recalibrate the life-support systems on the space shuttle. If that allusion is too cryptic, it means "We wouldn't understand it, it's not our place". Which is not to say that we couldn't be made to understand, but the time and effort it would take is not worth it.

My opponent continues "Complex, statistically improbable things, by definition, don't just happen; they demand an explanation in their own right." Do they really? Where's that written? And by whom? Which theory for the origins of that guy would Occam's Razor favor? God the Creator, or a bazillion unlikely coincidences?

At this point, my opponent threw down the gauntlet and adopted his very typically atheist technique of demeaning the intelligence or rationale of faithful people. To do so, my opponent again stands on the shoulders of real thinkers (logical maneuvering typical of college undergraduates who have not yet learned to think for themselves) and pokes holes in logic that is over seven hundred years old and is no longer considered valid in the religious community, which leads me to believe that he upholds in his mind the stereotype that there is no revision of thought in the faiths. All he proves by doing this is his own ignorance of modern Christian thought, much less the thinkers of other faiths.

Most of the traditional arguments for the existence of God are based on ancient thinking, which was in turn based on ancient principles. It was razor sharp in St. Thomas Aquinas' day, but then so was bloodletting and burning witches. We don't think like they do anymore. We have a new rationale, and it is this: you can't prove God exists because He won't allow Himself to be proven. Science takes His silence and says "You see? It's proof that He doesn't exist". While those of us with powers of reasoning and a strong faith say to ourselves "that's not proof". His proof is the lack of solid, immutable evidence that God doesn't exist along with the faith of an overwhelming majority of mankind in a God.

This, by the way, is an excellent point. Atheists make up a very small portion of the world's population. We'll say around 5%. You know what, I'll be really generous and double that. 10% of the world's population doesn't believe in a God or gods. So, by your arguments, you believe that 90% of the world is just completely wrong.

My opponent has repeatedly failed to present solid evidence to support his claim, but has instead taken to using other peoples' old, worn-out arguments to chip away at the faith of others. The little evidence he has presented has fallen into two categories:
1) named principles only, without more in-depth exploration of the application of those concepts.
2) reasonable logic based on faulty or fallacious linchpin assumptions, the correction of which caused the collapse of his arguments.
Without solid proof supporting his claim or dismantling my counter-claim, his resolution must be overturned. You simply cannot justifiably state as objective fact that God does not exist.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
"Occam's Razor is a valuable guideline, but is it really an an inviolable law, like a rule of logic?"

It's valuable for deciding what belief is more reasonable.
Posted by meespr 8 years ago
meespr
I appreciate the constructive criticism and I'll try to do better next time. Thanks for the support, either way.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
In my view, this was not well argued by either side. "God" was not defined by either side. Con might have gone for the Deist God, who created the universe and thereafter does nothing but await the Day of Judgment. Occam's Razor is a valuable guideline, but is it really an an inviolable law, like a rule of logic? Con was too accepting. Then when applying Occam's Razor, is "God" really simpler than other possibilities. God, as mutually accepted, has to track and be able to control every particle in the universe, which supposes considerably more complexity than the universe itself. Also, if creation is an issue, than God had to be created. Points not raised.

Pro bore the burden of proof, so I give the nod to Con.
Posted by puppyluvz 8 years ago
puppyluvz
con wins hands down!
2 bad i can't vote!
I'm sorry con.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
"Contention 1) Heisenberg's uncertainty principal"

How is that even remotely related to your argument? Values of a pair of conjugate variables can't both be precisely known at the exact same time with the same precision - a common foundation in quantum physics.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
Oh wow, I can't engage with a debate with you if I'm in another one with you already D:

Man, I wanted to take this...
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by zach12 8 years ago
zach12
JustinisthecrazymeesprTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by lou_oww 8 years ago
lou_oww
JustinisthecrazymeesprTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by Justinisthecrazy 8 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
JustinisthecrazymeesprTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Molokoplus 8 years ago
Molokoplus
JustinisthecrazymeesprTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Alex 8 years ago
Alex
JustinisthecrazymeesprTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
JustinisthecrazymeesprTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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