The Instigator
Jedi4
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Double_R
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

This shack would state: God has existence in our reality

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 3 votes the winner is...
Double_R
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 746 times Debate No: 60343
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

Jedi4

Pro

R1 is for the accept.

God: The being that gots all the love and power in the world. Greatest possible being.
Double_R

Con

The resolution is straightforward, so there is no need for clarification. In the absence of specified rules for the debate standard rules apply, ie: no semantics.

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Jedi4

Pro

Yesssss. Ok, yeah erm, right.

Argument number one

We have an idea of god obviously. We must ask what this means. Where did this idea come from? God is the perfect being, the perfect thing, he is the perfect drug. A cause must in some way contain its effect cuz then it wouldnt be able to cause it. This follows it must be greater than its effect, also because of entropy. Things tend to degrade, meaning a cause in the past is greater than its effect.

Riiiiiiight so we have the idea of God it cannot have come from our world because its all imperfect and finite. God is perfect and infinite. Our world cannot have caused the idea it must have been caused by something perfect and infinite. God. Yes. Boom

Argument number two

The Mathematician Kurt Godel proved the incompleteness theorem but he also had a nother theorem that the atheists try to surpress. We lay out our axioms.

  • Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
  • Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
  • Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
  • Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
  • Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive
  • Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
  • Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
  • Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property

Now we move onto the theorem.

  • Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
  • Theorem 2: The property of being God-like is consistent.
  • Theorem 3: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
  • Theorem 4: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

Very Chin rubbery.

Argument number three

I point out that naturalism is a system. One that exists and is itself (its not not itself). LEts examine the nature of being though1 A being is one that has mental occupancy. This being is one that is contained in itself it is not itself really. A being has no meaning outside of the mental occupants. This means since naturalism cannot be equal to itself but contained in itself but this cannot be since naturalism is itself. Since being isnt.

Meaning if there is a natural system then there best be being to precede it. Like in accupunture. There is a tense nerver and it needs to have a needle precede it to release the nerve. There must be being before there is world.

QED

Go exists.

Double_R

Con

Before I begin responding to Pro's arguments I think it is important to understand the burden of proof, as it is relative to understanding why Pro has failed to make a case for the resolution.

Many people confuse the burden of proof with the standard of evidence. This misconception stems most commonly from an understanding of the justice system imbedded in all of us where the prosecution is noted for having the burden of proof and responsible for proving the charges against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course the burden itself, and the requirement of how strongly the case must be proven are two very different things.

Having the burden simply means that you have the responsibility to make the case. How strongly you must prove your case is another concept. Philosophically speaking, the burden of proof rests on the person who makes the claim. Any claim. In this case Pro is claiming that God exists within our reality. He must prove that case. Since the standard of evidence is not specified, it is rational to conclude that in this context Pro's case must be made strongly enough to justify belief. An acceptable definition of belief is to accept that something is more likely than not. If someone said they thought the chances of a proposition being true was 50/50 we would not say that they believe either side of the proposition. Based on this what I believe to be non-controversial interpretation, Pro must prove that God's existence is more likely than not. 50/50 is simply not good enough, and suggesting something is possible doesn't do it either because possibility does not affirm probability.

Argument number one

Pro argues that a cause must be greater than its effect, and that this leads us to conclude that since our world is perfect and finite, the cause must be perfect infinite. First of all, Pro doesn't even define "greater" which is necessary to understanding his argument. Greater is a subjective term. It is not an inherent quality in anything, it is a description of how the qualities of one subject compare to the qualities of others against a subjectively chosen standard. For Pro to make his point he must explain what his standards are for greatness in this context, and how his standards leads us to his conclusion. He must also explain why we should accept his statement as true, given that a match can burn down an entire house. I am sure he is not about to argue that a match is greater.

The second part of his argument is even more fallacious. Claiming that something finite must be caused by something infinite or that something imperfect must be caused by something perfect is just plain nonsense. Not only does Pro have no examples of anything infinite or perfect in our reality to support his claim with, but when it comes to something perfect Pro is just playing with words. "Perfect", like "greater", is an entirely subjective term. Something can only be perfect in accordance with whatever criteria it being judged by. The term is meaningless as an argument for objective existence.

Pro has made no case here.

Argument number two

Pro's case here seems to be a typical example of trying to define God into existence. Definitions that we give to words are nothing more than concepts. Concepts have no necessary tie to reality. Simply throwing in the word "necessary" doesn't change that fact.

Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property

Axioms 1, 2, and 4, are true simply because refuting them would result in logically contradictory definitions. That says nothing about reality.

Axioms 3 and 5 are true depending on how you define "positive", which is yet again another subjective term that is utterly meaningless as an argument trying to prove an objective existence of something.

Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Theorem 2: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 3: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 4: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

T1. Nothing useful conveyed here.
T2. Defines the property of being God-like. Does nothing to establish that this property exists.
T3. Of course it does, because that is how Pro defined it. Nothing to do with reality.
T4. Does not follow from any of the previous theorems. And again, calling something necessary doesn't make it necessary.

Pro has made no case here.

Argument number three

I have no idea what the hec Pro is trying to argue here. He states that naturalism cannot be equal to itself, which is a complete violation of the first law of logic, ie; The Law of Identity, ie; A=A. He then claims that this illogical statement leads us to conclude that if there is a natural system then there "best be a being to precede it". Pro has to make a coherent argument, he doesn't just get to state that there best be anything. And even if he had some kind of point here (which he most certainly does not) he still hasn't even bothered to try to explain how this claim leads us to conclude that whatever comes before nature must be a being.

Pro has made no case here.

Summary

Pro has laid out three arguments, none of which make any connection from the premise to the conclusion making them all by definition, invalid. His arguments are therefore as useful as an argument that yesterday’s rainstorm in Switzerland affirms that the Cubs are going to win the World Series. He has utterly failed to uphold his burden, thus the resolution fails.
Debate Round No. 2
Jedi4

Pro

Argument number one

Con misunderstnads this argument. The argument had nothing to do with the world, it doesnt assume the existence of the world. Anyone can see that. this has to do with the idea of god. He also breaks his rule because he masturbates on what it menas to be greater.

Greatness cannot be subjective, for example a pile of sh1t clearly isn't as great as a pile of flowers. Flowers have more qualites like god.

Argument number two

It is no more trying to defined god into existence as the definition of a triange tires to define if it exists, it has three sides. He disputes some of the axioms by jerking off to semantics. If you want to all up tight about it godel defined positive properties as "an aesthetic and moral sense, or alternatively as the opposite of privation(the absence of necessary qualities in the universe)."

He disputes the theorems by circlejerk neo-atheist hand waving

T1. Nothing useful conveyed here.

This is not an objection nor is it any thing but a smug self-richous ejaculate

T2. Defines the property of being God-like. Does nothing to establish that this property exists.

Not the point you f*cktard. Jesus Skywalker christ.

T3. Of course it does, because that is how Pro defined it. Nothing to do with reality.

He agrees

T4. Does not follow from any of the previous theorems. And again, calling something necessary doesn't make it necessary.

Wtf? How does that follow? Are you high? You did nothing to refute any of the theroms. You comment on them and act like youve proven to the universe that god doesnt exist

Argument number three

The other guy does jack schtoko to refute this. He say "I dont know". Your ignorance is no exuse. Naturalism contains beings which are contained in themselves, but naturalism is a self equaling system. Meaning being must precede a natural system. That is the argument. If you cant understand it then you shouldn't of accepted.



Double_R

Con

I apologize to the readers for the waste of time this debate is turning out to be. Clearly, Pro either has no understanding of how intelligent debate works or no interest in having one. I will assume however that the readers do, and continue anyway.

Argument number one

Pro claims that I misunderstand his argument because I referred to the world. Con should read his own argument. He stated that since the world is imperfect and finite that the cause must be perfect and infinite. I simply repeated exactly what he said. Although I do admit to a typo when I stated that the world was [im]perfect. If Pro bothered to read my response he would have figured that out.

Pro also states that greatness is not subjective. Pro should look up the word. He states that a pile of sh*t is not as great as flowers. If the goal is to attract flies for a scientific study then sh*t is far greater then flowers. Pro should explain what he is talking about.

Argument one has established nothing.

Argument number two

Pro actually gives us a definition of positive. Now that we have one we can plug it into his axioms to see of it works:
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is [an aesthetic and moral sense] property.

Great, so it's beautiful and makes us feel good. That doesn't help us prove God exists.

T1. The only objection is that it was not useful, Pro failed to show otherwise.
T2. F*cktard is not an argument. Also, Pro took the lords name in vain. He'd better hope the resolution is wrong.
T3. Glad we agree that T3 has nothing to do with reality
T4. It does not follow because Pro has done nothing to show that it does. "WTF?" doesn't change that.

Argument two has established nothing.

Argument number three

Yes, naturalism is a self-equaling system. That means it is consistent with the first law of logic. The idea that a being must precede our natural system is what the debate is about. I am sorry if Pro doesn't realize that in a debate you have tolay out and defend your argument, not just state it.

Pro has yet to establish anything relevant the resolution. Note that my responses are in direct response to his points. If it seems that we have strayed away from the topic it is because we did, and that is because Pro would rather call me a f*cktard then to defend his resolution. The burden is on him, so it's not my problem.
Debate Round No. 3
Jedi4

Pro

Stop hitting the pipe man.

Argument number one

Good skywalker

Riiiiiiight so we have the idea of God it cannot have come from our world because its all imperfect and finite. God is perfect and infinite. Our world cannot have caused the idea it must have been caused by something perfect and infinite. God. Yes. Boom


It had notin to do with the world's existence.

My argument from sh1t was rebutting via circilar logic. You have to assume flies are great. They are dirty insects that fly around having sex and breading on sh1t (like atheists). to prove flies are great.

BINGO BONGO BANGO I DONT WANT TO LEAVE THE CONGO OH NO NO NOOOOOO!

No nonon onooo noo.doesnt make us feel good. thats not what moral beuty is.

Then Cun copies my arguments but replaces cun with me (pro). which is bullsh1t and is a stupid tactic. He fails. I didnt take the God damn lords name in vain. In order to take his name in vain you have to reject him. So I can say god damn jesus christ all the god damn day.

Argument three

Naturalism is suppose to be a self-equaling system, but the fact it isnt because it contains omnious beings shows that it is wrong because it contradicts the first law of logic!!!!!! I did prove that a being must precede a natural system because since being contains occupancy, then there must be something outside of the natural system that contains mental occupancy!!

Con has failed to understand this argument

Do the right thing, do the godly thing.

Vote con

Double_R

Con

Pro is still claiming that his argument had nothing to do with the world. At this point it's just a matter of which one of us is speaking English. Let's take another look:

"Riiiiiiight so we have the idea of God it cannot have come from our world because its all imperfect and finite. God is perfect and infinite. Our world cannot have caused the idea it must have been caused by something perfect and infinite. God. Yes. Boom"

Notice how Pro bolden's "the idea of God" to emphasize that this is what he is referring to. He then immediately follows with "it cannot have come from our world because its all imperfect and finite". What is the "its" in that sentence? Pro is obviously not calling God imperfect and finite because then he would have immediately contradicted himself afterward, so the only possible alternative is our world because that is the only other subject in his statement. If the argument had nothing to do with the world then Con needs to learn English.

Pro then states that his argument was "rebutting via circular logic". I have no idea what this means. First of all Pro has the burden of proof so rebutting anything does not help his case. Second, this was Pros first round argument. There was nothing to refute.

I don't know what BINGO BONGO BANGO means, or how it helps Pros case so I'll just move on.

Pro apparently has a problem with me addressing him as Pro, calling it a stupid tactic. I don't consider professionalism in a formal debate to be a stupid tactic. Pro could learn a thing or two about it.

According to Pro, the only way to take the lords name in vain is to reject him. To reject God is not believe in him. To not believe in him makes you an atheist. So according to Pro, the commandment "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" was a commandment to atheists. Because that makes sense.

Pro claims that he has proven the existence of God because since being contains occupancy, there must be something outside of the natural system that contains mental occupancy. But why is mental occupancy required? Oh yea, that's the part Pro is supposed to be proving. Proving a statement such as that requires an argument. Four rounds and I am still waiting for one.

Pro has utterly failed to offer anything of value in this debate, other than the curiosity of trying to figure out if he is serious. I would normally conclude by stating how the resolution was negated, but in this case Pro provided nothing to negate.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Emmarie 1 year ago
Emmarie
"According to Pro, the only way to take the lords name in vain is to reject him. To reject God is not believe in him. To not believe in him makes you an atheist. So according to Pro, the commandment "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" was a commandment to atheists. Because that makes sense."
Thank you Double_R for the most stress relief I've had in months - via laughter. Your composure and delivery proves there is a God who created intelligent beings!
Posted by Double_R 2 years ago
Double_R
Wow, that was the worst debate I ever took part in.
Posted by Double_R 2 years ago
Double_R
Didn't know you were a comedian.
Posted by Jedi4 2 years ago
Jedi4
ddobe r has only 19 hours to most. it seems hes a afraid of me.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
Jedi4Double_RTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to make any sensible arguments to support his BOP. Arguments to Con. Pro resorted to childish name calling and personal attackes. Conduct to Con. Pro had poor spelling and bad grammar. Spelling and grammar to Con. Pro did a terrible job in this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Jedi4Double_RTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro trolled
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
Jedi4Double_RTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was pretty clearly trolling here. Con did not treat this like a troll debate, and rebutted all of Pro's case. Arguments to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.