The Instigator
johncwms27
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
jesse32
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

There is no logical proof for the existence of 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,375 times Debate No: 782
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (5)

 

johncwms27

Pro

While I cannot disprove the existence of God, I think it is highly unlikely that there is a God. There is no substantial evidence that God exists and every logical proof I hear is a fallacy. Somebody prove me wrong and argue, logically, that God exists!
jesse32

Con

jesse32 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 1
johncwms27

Pro

I'm disappointed that my opponent refused to argue her side of the argument. Since I have nobody to argue against, let me address some of the comments below.

To "logicman": Your username is ironic, because you use a logical fallacy in your comment. You say that God must exist, or else we wouldn't be here to argue about it. That is a textbook case of a "begging the question" fallacy, in which the proposition to be proven is assumed in the premise. This is also called the circular argument. With all due respect "logicman", you may wish to brush up on your logic.

To "jesse32":

Let me take your comments one by one. First, you said "If enough people make pancakes, then pancakes exist. The same goes for God." So you are saying that "if enough people make God, then God exists." Do I really have to explain what's wrong with this argument?

But then you go on to say that "enough people believe that God exists. So you lose." I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that what you intended to argue was 'people believe in pancakes, so pancakes exist...people believe in God, so God exists...'. Is something true just because people believe it? If I believe that pink elephants are fucking in my bathroom, does that mean that pink elephants really are fucking in my bathroom?

Then you go on to say "I can argue for the other team and still crush your argument." As opposed to crushing my argument if you were arguing on my team?

Then you say "It is possible to convince you that God exists. I'll do it now." Well, I'm not going to say that it's impossible to convince me that God exists, but it's very unlikely. But you haven't done it as you said you would...you didn't even try to. You had three days to post an argument and you haven't.

I'm very disappointed. This is my first debate on Debate.org, and I was looking forward to a good discussion. Now it seems you will not post any arguments and I will have to open a new debate with the same title so that somebody will debate with me. What a waste of time! Thanks a lot "jesse32".
jesse32

Con

jesse32 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
johncwms27

Pro

I rest my case.

(I have opened up a new debate, under the same topic, with "alpineseven")

.
jesse32

Con

jesse32 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Muhafidh 9 years ago
Muhafidh
There is indeed a subjective element to logic. Witness the great browbeater Socrates. He might ask, "Isn't it logical that only the wisest of citizens should rule the country?" The audience answers, "Yes." Then Socrates takes that affirmation as the basis for another step in the syllogism: "Then society must have a way to identify its wisest citizens and train them to be rulers." "Yes," is the response. "And so society should also identify who should be teachers and who should be soldiers." "Yes" again. "And so society should identify such people as early in life as possible, to provide them with ample training." "Yes" again. "And society should therefore remove children from their parents, to be raised by those who know their chosen professions best." And the next "yes" is more hesitant, and this continues. Socrates has succeeded in logically convincing his audience of an absurdity.
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
I think jesse32 may have gotten confused by the way the site is set up. If she read this I hope next time she reads every box in a debate more carefully, so she doesn't miss the debate entirely... again.
Posted by alpineseven 9 years ago
alpineseven
Id love to debate this one! send me a challenge! I think jesse is confused on how to debate, she left a couple comments instead of her side.
Posted by johncwms27 9 years ago
johncwms27
Is there anyone else who would like to debate this same topic with me? Anyone who will actually post an argument, instead of forfeiting each round? If so, let me know...
Posted by johncwms27 9 years ago
johncwms27
jesse32: if you're not going to post an argument, please leave the debate so somebody else can join.
Posted by manteca514 9 years ago
manteca514
Advidoct, logic is most certainly not subjective. That you would even say such a thing is appalling.

What the instigator is suggesting is that people of faith are just that: they are people of faith, not people of logic and fact. They must trust what they are told based on tradition, hierarchy, and slavish appeals to order and continuity.

If it were based on logic, the billions of people in the world who worship from a book that puts the age of the earth at 6,000 years would recant such beliefs as the utter drivel that they are.

Such beliefs as this, which attempt to seriously explain the origins of life on this earth (and elsewhere, if we can finally leave behind our sad solipsism), are inherently illogical, as they are not based on the best evidence with which we have been presented but are instead based on what has been passed down for centuries by the church and other authorities in Christianity.
Posted by logicman 9 years ago
logicman
i believer there is a God. or else we wouldn't be arguing right now because you wouldn't be here.
Posted by ashiiAESTHETIC 9 years ago
ashiiAESTHETIC
if enough people believe it,then it means it is believed to exist but however still no proof of existance. back in BC where people's intellegence were rather limited, science had not been figured out so they believe that a being, (which is god of course) made what didnt seem possible happen. so it is by word of mouth as these people's beliefs are brought to now. but at the same time, there is no proof that god doesnt exist either.

well yeahh thats my view :)
Posted by jesse32 9 years ago
jesse32
Yes, I am calling God a pancake. This is a debate. I can argue for the other team and still crush your argument. It is possible to convince you that God exist. I will do it now.
Posted by jesse32 9 years ago
jesse32
If enough people make pancakes, then pancakes exist. The same goes for God. I am making a debate because your initial argument is weak. Enogh people believe that God exists. So you lose.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Devils_Advocate 9 years ago
Devils_Advocate
johncwms27jesse32Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
johncwms27jesse32Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by tenjusato 9 years ago
tenjusato
johncwms27jesse32Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by UberCryxic 9 years ago
UberCryxic
johncwms27jesse32Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Leonitus_Trujillo 9 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
johncwms27jesse32Tied
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:30