The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BrettBoelkens
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Time Constancy is Proof 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
BrettBoelkens
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/4/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 269 times Debate No: 103411
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

Time continues moving forward
at a constant rate no matter what we do:

But why?

https://www.youtube.com...
BrettBoelkens

Con

My opponent links to a Youtube video instead of writing his argument down. So I will summarize his argument in syllogistic form.

P1. Time is constant
P2. There must be a reason for this.
P3. The only reason possible is God or something similar to a god.
SP1. There is no law that posits the consistency of time.
SP2. Even if there was, it would suffer from infinite regress.
C. God exists

Rebuttals
P1.
I'm not sure if my opponent is arguing time is constant in subjective or objective terms. If he argues that we know time is constant in subjective terms, the statement time is constant is false, due to time dilation from Einstien's theory of relativity. Additionally, our perception of time can be affected by drugs, severe mental illness, etc.

If he does argue in objective terms, however, the premise stands.
P2.
Why couldn't this just be a brute fact, like the universe existing, or in your case, God existing?

P3.
How did you come the conclusion that the divine is the only possible arbiter of time?

SP1 & SP2
This argument is similar to asking why is there something rather than nothing, and answering God. Then you just made the question why is there God rather than nothing? If you posit God as the arbiter of time, what reason is there that he would remain constant? And then you invent an arbiter for the arbiter, you must ask why he remains constant? To add, why is God not subject to time in the first place? You may posit that he is timeless, but you must add an argument for that position and not merely assert it.

C.
And now we get to the point where this argument truly fails. Why must the conclusion be God, rather than Shiva, Allah, Horus, Thor, or Zeus? You could use this argument to prove any God whatsoever, not merely the God of Christianity. As a corollary to this, it is a broken compass argument, leading to infinitely many mutually exclusive conclusions.
Debate Round No. 1
Purushadasa

Pro

Someone wrote:

"My opponent links to a Youtube video instead of writing his argument down. So I will summarize his argument in syllogistic form.

P1. Time is constant
P2. There must be a reason for this.
P3. The only reason possible is God or something similar to a god.
SP1. There is no law that posits the consistency of time.
SP2. Even if there was, it would suffer from infinite regress.
C. God exists"

That is not my argument, so you just committed straw man logical fallacy.

You are arguing against yourself, not against my actual argument, so you lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
BrettBoelkens

Con

Please provide evidence and argument that I didn't just straw man your argument. Don't just assert your position, for assertions don't equal evidence. I too could merely assert a position, yet I try to provide argument. If I did, please cite where and we can deal with it then. Till then, my rebuttals still stand.

Additionally, I too could say that you lost just by taking too long to post arguments or such. This is a gross misunderstanding of what debate is, and how to win one. Just because one side does something that's not to your liking, does not mean you won. I could cite how you compared atheists to defecating babies, and say that I won for that reason. The logic in you saying that is horrendous.



Debate Round No. 2
Purushadasa

Pro

Someone wrote:

"Please provide evidence and argument that I didn't just straw man your argument."

But you DID straw man my argument: The statement that you claimed was my argument was actually your own statement -- not my statement. Therefore your claim that it was my argument was a straw man logical fallacy (and a lie) on your part.

"Don't just assert your position, for assertions don't equal evidence."

I provided evidence for my position, but you provided none for yours: Therefore you lost the debate.

"The logic in you saying that is horrendous."

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between good logic and horrendous logic.
BrettBoelkens

Con

I don't know how I straw manned his argument, and if I did I am sorry. But I merely attempted to summarize it and place it into syllogistic form. If I made a mistake on this part, that is my fault, but this would just me making a mistake. If he has a syllogistic form that he approves of, he should have used it.

I, of course, offered evidence that your argument is not proof of God, citing time dilation, time perception, and broken compass fallacy. You have still yet to provide evidence that I straw manned your position.

We are arguing about the temporal argument, not the presuppositional argument. And again, what evidence do you have for this.

In conclusion, my opponent has failed to argue against my rebuttals, keeping them standing. He has said I have lost the debate before we even started, yet when the debate has started, he has failed to rebut even one of my points, piling assertions on top of assertions. I thank my opponent this opportunity, and now lets go to voting
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Someone wrote:

"I don't know how I straw manned his argument"

By writing your own statements and claiming that I wrote them -- that's how, you liar.

, "and if I did I am sorry."

Yes, you are very, very sorry -- a sorry excuse for an actual debater.

"that is my fault"

Yes, it is.

," but this would just me making a mistake."

Yes, and your specific "mistake" is called straw man logical fallacy.

"he should have used it. "

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between what "should" and "should not" occur.

"I, of course, offered evidence"

You offered exactly zero evidence for any of your silly and ignorant atheistic claims, actually.

"citing time dilation, time perception, and broken compass fallacy. You have still yet to provide evidence that I straw manned your position."

All of those citations were arguing against your own statements, not arguing against anything that I actually stated, so I deleted them without reading because it was all part of your elaborate straw man logical fallacy: Deal with it, Princess.

If you want to address my actual argument instead of addressing your own straw man, then I will read them and respond, but I don't respond to lunatics who argue with themselves.

You lost the debate -- thanks for your time! =)
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
You lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Posted by BrettBoelkens 5 months ago
BrettBoelkens
No, I still need to post my opening statements. See the time remaining countdown above? That's how much time I got left till I forfeit. And no, if I forfeit, you don't win.
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
I'm new here, so I'm not entirely sure how this woks yet.

Someone accepted my debate challenge, but offered no counter-argument.

I guess this means that I win the debate by default, right? =)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 5 months ago
Phenenas
PurushadasaBrettBoelkensTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: No.
Vote Placed by philochristos 5 months ago
philochristos
PurushadasaBrettBoelkensTied
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 had the burden of proof in this debate. it was his burden to demonstrate that Time constancy is proof of God. But he never made a single argument to that effect in this debate, so he did not carry his burden of proof. That is why I gave the win to Con. Con attempted to have a debate by making a guess about what Pro's argument might be, but Pro said it was a misrepresentation of his argument, so we can ignore it.