The Instigator
David.McIntosh
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
DoctorDeku
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

There is no proof that a God exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
David.McIntosh
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,664 times Debate No: 34415
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (5)

 

David.McIntosh

Pro

Since Con gets to put his argument over in round 1, I ask that Cons round 5 be left for closing comments rather than argument to keep it fair.

I also ask that Con asserts at least a brief definition of God in his opening round, for we cannot debate if we don't know what we are debating.

I thank my opponent in advance for taking on this debate and hope we both enjoy it.
DoctorDeku

Con

Because this is such a unique resolution, it has obviously never take place before. As such, I see a lot of ground for new and exciting arguments to be made. However the uniqueness of this resolution means that I just don't have a whole lot to refer to so as to understand what exactly should be covered in this debate. Darn the luck! All the same, I don't want to let my opponent down, so I guess I'm just going to have to make a couple of assumptions based on Pro's round one. But we'll get to that in a moment.

It would also appear that my opponent has chosen not to make a constructive argument until after I've made one. This is a very daring move on his part, and I commend his bravery here. After all, it's no easy task to maintain a burden of proof without even providing a constructive argument. Golly! After all, since my opponent is the one who has chosen to instigate this debate, he does indeed hold the burden of proof to maintain the claim he is affirming. I mean to do otherwise would be to commit a burden shifting fallacy, and no one would ever do that.

So as I can see it, there are a couple of truths that I'm sure we're all aware of, but I'm going to go ahead and state them anyway.

First, my opponent is the instigator of this debate and therefore hold the burden of proof.

Second, my opponent hasn't clarified what he means by 'God', 'Proof' or 'Exists'

Third, my opponent has left these terms up to me to decided.

That said I guess I should hit up Google before arguing so that we know what we're talking about. (after all, it's not like this debate has ever taken place before, right?)

God Is defined by Princeton Wordnet as: an 'idol: a material effigy that is worshipped'

Proof is defined by Princeton as: 'any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something'

And Exists is defined by Google Dictionary as: to 'Have objective reality or being'

That said, I'm just going to throw out a few arguments based on what I understand this debate to be.

Contention 1: Checkmate Atheists-
I guess Atheists don't have Google images, because one quick search landed me irrefutable proof that God does exist!

Here, we see a statue of Buddha, the enlightened one: http://www.viewzone.com...
Here, a painting of Zeus, the God of Thunder: http://moviewriternyu.files.wordpress.com...
And here, a picture of the Winged Dragon of Ra, A God card from the popular card game Yu-Gi-Oh: http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net...

Contention 2: Physics B*tch!-
Professor Utonium once said, 'for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction'. Or was that Newton? Oh well, those cookies suck anyway.

Moving on, we understand that Professor Oak was a smart guy and Tasmanian Devils exist, we also realize that Tasmanian Gods must exist too. I've got science on my side!

In conclusion, we see that I have provided irrefutable evidence that there is indeed proof of the existence of God. After all, it's not like such a belief would be a important personal one would hold independent from empirics. I hope that I've extended from my opponent's unfortunately limited framework to make this debate the debate he would have wanted to have.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 1
David.McIntosh

Pro

I thank Con for his responce however he has failed on a few things


Burden Of Proof

Firstly, Con thinks that whoever goes first must have the burdon of proof. "There is not proof of God" is not a positive claim. How could I show you evidence that there is no evidence? To do that, I'd have to show you everything ever, so that within that you could see that there is no proof of gods existence. Well, if thats what it takes... I present to you, the entire world. Within it, you will not find proof of gods existence.

"There is proof of god" would be the positive claim, and the one which would need backed up with whatever your proof is. So to say that I am burdon shifting is an insult to your own intelligence. I'm going to assume that Con is not this silly, and therefor knows that the burdon of proof does not lie with me, but in Con, to proof that there is indeed evidence of Gods existence.

Con goes on for a second pargraph about burden of proof and hwo there is no constructive arguement in round 1. I deliberately left my round 1 open so that Con can assert his God as there are so many religions. There is no point in me putting forward an argument that deals with the moral issues, or with creative design, if Con is asserting a God which has different views than the moral or creative design ones known in christianity for example.


Definitions

While I left this open due to there being so many religions and faith, and admire your picking of the one non-religios definition of God, this debate is in the religion section however.

Contention 1

While defnitly an out of the box thought, I have never seen anyone attend religios services to worship a statue, painting or picture. While there may be books, pictures or statues that religions use, I would put forward that the objects themself are not what is being worshipped. E.g. The bible its self is not worshipped, the God of what it teaches is what is worshipped.

While you may have provided a painting of zeus, that is not proof that Zeus exists. If people worshipped and prayed to this painting, this would not be in itself proof that Zeus existed.

To sum up, paintings and statues etc. are not proof of god.


Contention 2

You are going to have to elaborate on this one as it doesnt seem to flow with much clarity or meaning. Causes have effects, but I dont see what that has to do with a pokemon character or an australian animal.

DoctorDeku

Con

My, my, my. What my opponent has chosen to do in this debate is very disappointing. He has made several assumptions about nature of this resolution and has applied those assumptions as truths before fully warranting those assumptions. Now of course, I fully intend to clarify this abuse of framework before getting into the specific on-case arguments, but I feel that this is warrant for a loss of conduct points from the Pro.

Framework
First, let us examine the nature of Instigator, versus a Contender.
To instigate an argument, one need only to make a objective and clear claim. It does not matter whether or not that claim is a positive one such as 'Tacos are good' or a negative one such as 'Tacos are not good'. All that matters is that the objective claim is made by an individual who seeks discourse from another individual. The contender is the person who challenges said claim as either an advocate of the inverse stance of said claim, or one as one who only intends to refute the warrants present in said claim.

For the sake of illustration, the Instigator's claim shall be 'Tacos are not good'. The Contender may take the inverse position and claim that 'Tacos are good', or the contender may simply examine the Instigator's reasoning behind claiming that tacos are not good and dismantle them. Either way if the Contender is successful into their burden of clash they have won the debate.

This discussion of Instigator versus Contender also begs the question of precedent beliefs, also known as the presumption of belief. The Instigator, when making a claim, must assume that the inverse claim is the Status Quo. When the instigator claims that 'Tacos are not good', he or she makes that claim against either an assumption that the the tacos are good, or against the assumption that no-one has an opinion of the quality of the tacos. The claim is not automatically accepted simply because it has been made, it must overcome the presumption which exists in the status quo.

That brings us to our current dillema in this debate; my opponent never indicated that he wished to deviate from basic argumentative theory which places the sole burden of proof on the instigator. And if that leaves him making a claim that he doesn't know how to support, then he should take this debate as a learning experience and craft a better framework next time. Before the beginning of this debate we must presume that nobody cares either way about proof of the existence of God. Those who believe in a may God take their belief on faith, tradition, emotion or they may even have evidence to support their belief. One may have a mixture of things which point to their belief in a God. Whatever an individual's personal warrant for their belief is doesn't really matter.

Next, let's discuss my opponent's skimpy round one; all he says there is that 'Con gets to go first' and 'Define God'. And while that's great and all, it doesn't relieve him of his duty of his duty as the instigator of this debate. If anything, it just makes him kind of lazy for not putting his arguments out first, or at least keeping the first round solely for acceptance. The Contender maintains presumption, and my opponent fails to meet his burden. Again, if he doesn't like that, do a better job in framing the debate next time.

Definitions
Nope. You don't get to cry abuse when you had every opportunity to define God.

This is a semantic issue guys; Pro allowed me to define, so it's my right to define however I want to.

As for the whole argument of this debate being in the religious section, not all religions had to have a God who lives in the clouds.

Contention 1
Analytical argument aren't refutation for proof guys. The only way this argument even begins to fly is if you reject the definition that my opponent allowed me to provide in the first place. And again, that would be semantic abuse.

Furthermore, let's talk about the idea of idols which is how I defined 'God' in the first place; they are objects, things which can be worshipped. Buddha still counts under this defintions, and my opponent doesn't even touch the winged dragon of Ra

More semantic abuse here too, don't let Pro get away with that.

Contention 2
Drop!
Don't let my opponent bring this argument up again. Saying you don't understand an argument isn't refutation.

Underview
As you can clearly see, the Con is winning this debate. My opponent is making a claim which he never had any intention to prove. This isn't reddit, you don't get to state a belief which is popularly held and expect to win because of the circle-jerk nature of the community you're in. In argumentation, you make claims and then you warrant those claims. You don't state what feel to be true and then shift the BOP when your claim is addressed.

In short, my opponent has made some pretty lazy mistakes in framing this debate, and he doesn't get to win because he doesn't like my framework.

Also he kind of dropped both my arguments.

Now off the flow
Religion and/or belief is God is a deeply personal thing. It's not something one takes on empirical evidence. The inverse of that, is that one who does not hold such a belief is not entitled to demand evidence supporting such a belief. Honestly, kind of argument is when one is the contender of a debate, but to make such a claim as an Instigator is kind of lame.
Debate Round No. 2
David.McIntosh

Pro

I post in the religios section, a debate on the proof of god. In your closing paragraph you put forward that religion is not something taken on evidence. I think you have missed the point of this debate.

I ask for you to elaborate Contention 2 because your wording in round one was unreadable, but you have refused to do so and simply stated "Don't let my opponent bring this argument up again"

I thank you for your response, and will ignore your assertions of lazyness and abuse. For the above reasons, unless your willing to change the above I see no point in continuing.

A playing card is not a god, it has no god like properties. A pokemon character has nothing to do with a religios debate, and as for the taco statement... Taco's being good or bad is opinion, you do not have budren of proof on opinion, so using it in a burden of proof point is abit logicaly flawed at best.

If I am marked down, so be it, my ego won't be hurt with numbers. I would rather have enjoyable intelligable discussions.
DoctorDeku

Con

Off the Flow,
First of all, I made the argument concerning religion being a personal thing off the flow. Those comments have nothing to do with the on-case clash -- I have other stand-alone arguments for the on-case, argument which my opponent has failed to respond to.

Framework,
I used nearly 4000 characters in the previous round making a detailed, and clear explanation of the framework in this round. My opponent doesn't even try to engage it, minus a comment on my taco analofg, but we'll get to that in a moment. Make direct extensions of every argument here; including presumption, definitions and instigator versus contender.

Pro does argue that the goodness of Tacos are all up to opinion, however that doesn't refute the fact that arguments can be made in favor, or against the goodness of tacos. And that's my point. When one says that 'Tacos are not good' that is a claim against the prevailing opinion, that it doesn't matter either way. Even though this belief is a negative one, it still challenges the status quo. The status quo maintains presumption unless alternative arguments can be made, so unless one can show that tacos are not good, the world will continue not to care.

In the same way, Pro has to prove his claim as he challenges the presumption of the contender. It doesn't matter the he has chosen a difficult premise to defend, he made the choice to defend that premise. I'm winning before you even consider the 'clash'.

C1
My opponent only now attacks this argument, but with a simple baseless claim, that playing cards are not gods. First and foremost, The Winged Dragon of Ra is a Yu-Gi-Oh card, not a Pokemon card. Second, making a claim absent of a warrant doesn't prove anything. This argument needs to be rejected because... well there's no warrant.

Even if my opponent finds my argument silly, or ridiculous, he has to attack it and warrant his attacks. He chooses not to do this, so it's extended across unscathed.

C2
Guys, if you understand my argument then this is a drop. If not, well whatever. I'm still winning the on-case on contention one and my opponent hasn't even presented any constructive arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
David.McIntosh

Pro

I ask for you to elaborate Contention 2 because your wording in round one was unreadable, but you have refused to do so. This has still gone unchanged. If I don't understand your argument then "well whatever"?

But then you attack me for saying that "A playing card is not a god, it has no god like properties". Also, how is this not warranted? If you want to reject that argument, show me its God-like properties.

My reference to a pokemon character was to Prof. Oak, not the card. Like I stated before, we clearly have a difference of opinion on burden of proof, and it has created a complete impass and made this debate un-enjoyable for ourselves and I imagine, anyone bothering to read it.

It has now wasted too many rounds for this to become anything like a reasoned discussion on a deity.
DoctorDeku

Con

Pro isn't even trying. Extend across all of my prior arguments, Con wins on presumption alone.
Debate Round No. 4
David.McIntosh

Pro

Wasted debate. But I will sum up.


Burden Of Proof

I have stated why I think burden of proof falls with Con. It fall with Con because you do not prove a lack of proof. If I say "There is no proof of gravity" you would go.. "Yes there is" and show proof. Its that simple. We do not assume that everything exists until proven otherwise, we assume that things do no exist unless evidence is given that they do.

So, saying that there is no evidence for God does not require me to show you everything that exists so that you know there is no evidence for God, it requires you to accept that, or to provide such evidence to prove me wrong. Thus, Burden of proof STILL falls with you.


A Gaming Card Is A God

Con stated that a gaming card is proof of God but did not backing it up. As I stated, it has no God like properties. It is not all powerful and all knowing, it did not create anything, people do not gather on mass to pray to it. It is simply not a God. I have stated this before, but as like other points, it has been ignored.


Contention 2

Con stated "Professor Utonium once said, 'for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction'. Or was that Newton? Oh well, those cookies suck anyway. Moving on, we understand that Professor Oak was a smart guy and Tasmanian Devils exist, we also realize that Tasmanian Gods must exist too. I've got science on my side!"

I'm sorry, but that does not read as anything that points to proof of God. Con has taken every round since round 1 to elaborate on contention 2. Since he has not done so, I still cannot argue any point on this.

All he has said is "Don't let my opponent bring this argument up again".


Conclusion

As stated, this debate was posted in the religion catagory. Not philosophy. Clearly, we were looking for a religios based debate. Con has not given one, at all. It was an evidence based debate, and Con has provided no evidence of any deity or religios God.

We do not assume that everything exists until proven otherwise, that is why Con has the burden of proof. This is why my round 1 was left very open. It was open because everyone has different arguements for the existance of a religios God. Somepeople present the modal ontological argument, some people present that morals could not exist withought God, some people say point to creative design, others point to "you cant have something from nothing".

I left it open so that Con was not limited to any one of these, and so that it would hopefully make for a better debate. Unfortunitly he has ignored the debate catagory, not met his initial burden of proof, just shifted it to me, he has failed to reword contention 2, and his best evidence of God is a god gaming card.

Voters can mark whatever way, I'm not here for rank, I'm here for enjoyable debates. Unfortunitly I feel that this one was simply wasted.
DoctorDeku

Con

I'm supposed to make any on-case arguments this round.
I will point out that it kind of sucks that my opponent waited until I couldn't respond to actually debate.

Please consider them new arguments.
Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
RFD:

Nobody argued on topic. So the only issue is who had the burden of proof. The party without the burden of proof wins the debate.

Pro instigated, and styled himself "Pro." This hints at Pro having the burden. But, on the other hand, he wanted Con to argue first which strongly suggests that Con was to have the burden. Con declined to argue first(at least on topic) , which suggests that Pro had the burden, or at least that Con wanted Pro to have the burden. The parties each explicitly stated that the other party had the burden, but that was after the debate started, not during setup.

The resolution is phrased as if Pro had the burden. Suppose Pro accepted the debate in good faith, but then realized that you can't really affirmatively argue that it is not true that there is no evidence? Maybe he was doing the best he could given the awkwardly worded resolution? Obviously not; he could have offered evidence that gods exist. That would have refuted the resolution. If such evidence exists. And why would Con have accepted the debate if he didn't believe that such evidence exists? Why would he have accepted the debate, in which Pro made it clear that Con was to argue first, if Con wasn't willing to argue first and present evidence that gods exist?

Con is clearly culpable for accepting the debate in bad faith, or with intent to screw around rather than to debate seriously.

Is Pro more culpable for setting up the debate badly? Con had to see that the debate set-up was awkward. He could have avoided the awkwardness by declining the debate?

If the debate were a car wreck, Con would be at fault. Pro ran a red light with his awkward set-up, but Con had the last chance to avoid the accident by putting on the brakes (not accepting the debate).

I initially voted for Con because I thought Pro was culpable with his awkward set-up which invited awkwardness, but now, in the course of writing this RFD, I have talked myself around.
Posted by stubs 3 years ago
stubs
If this debate is still unaccepted in the morning I will accept it.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 3 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
Again, you still haven't defined "proof". Do you mean beyond irrevocable doubt or a reasonable argument?
Posted by David.McIntosh 3 years ago
David.McIntosh
P.S. if there's any error in the way I have worded things though, feel free to take on the debate ;)
Posted by David.McIntosh 3 years ago
David.McIntosh
I defined the God, the God has set perimeters, these perimeters can be proven. I also have another one open without a God defined. The reason for this is that I leave it open for the other person to put forward a definition in the first round.

I think we can agree on what "proof" is, but why type of proof is up to them. In this case, it was a logical argument, in other cases it might be physical evidence or or something else completely.

Personaly I think there are many justified reasons people could have for believing in a god, and I have no objection to them doing so. I simply just think that they are believing in a God and following a set of rules etc. for nothing other than blind faith.
Posted by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
Yeah, I kind of wish people would stop putting "proof" in their resolutions. This same question comes up every time somebody does that. People ask, "What do you mean by 'proof'." Of course if you want to keep it in there, you could just define it so people will know what you're trying to say. Or, instead of saying, "There is no proof that God exists," you could say, "There is no justification for belief in God" or "There are no sound arguments for the existence of God," or something like that.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 3 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
You need to define "proof". Are you requiring your opponent to demonstrate beyond any doubt that God exist, which is an unrealistic expectation, or are you asking for reasonable arguments for God's existence?
Posted by MattHarrison 3 years ago
MattHarrison
Your last name is similar to that of an apple. How can we be so sure that you aren't one, MCINTOSH!!!!!!!!
Posted by David.McIntosh 3 years ago
David.McIntosh
GOP, thank you. :) I am new to here so I look forward to any comments with interest!
Posted by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
I will keep an eye on this debate with interest.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Ameliamk1
David.McIntoshDoctorDekuTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I hate people who think their clever...by the way con, since pro's title was that there is no proof that god exists, your job is to provide proof. So no, the burden of proof is not on pro.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
David.McIntoshDoctorDekuTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Travniki 3 years ago
Travniki
David.McIntoshDoctorDekuTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con betrayed the spirit of the debate with pedantic semantics to try and get an easy win. I think we all know what is meant by an 'Is God Real Debate' by now EDIT: Even if we accept Cons' definition of "God" I would still give this debate to Pro because he gave decent analysis as to why an idol is not a god. Con was of course, brief and flippant in his rebuttal of Pros analysis because he had already got it into his head that he had an easy win and was no longer looking for a serious debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
David.McIntoshDoctorDekuTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I've got too much bias to vote on anything but conduct. Pro basically used a lot of trap tactics: Declaring in round 2 that con should have BoP (you're the instigator, you could have written that into round 1). Then all those new arguments in the final round.
Vote Placed by wolfman4711 3 years ago
wolfman4711
David.McIntoshDoctorDekuTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Weird debate...