The Instigator
JayConar
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
FuzzyCatPotato
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Whether or not there is a God is irrelevant and not worth discussing.

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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,017 times Debate No: 65270
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

JayConar

Pro

First round acceptance
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

I accept.

As Con, I will argue that "Whether or not there is a God is relevant and worth discussing."
Debate Round No. 1
JayConar

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate

God is a subjective concept and therefore not easily defined. Therefore ascertaining whether or not their is a certain God does not prove anything about other types of Gods.

Sorry for the late response.
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

I'm pressed for time, too.

My argument basically goes like this:

It's possible that a god exists.

It's possible to prove that certain sets of gods do or do not exist. For example, a god that punches all people in the face on wednesday, every wednesday, is disprovable and provable.

Of those provable gods, there are impacts if those gods exist. For example, if a god that will stop global warming if we become pirates [1] exists, then we would know that becoming pirates is a good idea.

Thus, it's relevant if certain gods exist or not, and it is thus relevant to discuss whether or not said gods exist.

REF

[1] http://rationalwiki.org...
Debate Round No. 2
JayConar

Pro

Round 3

My opponent argues that you are able to prove the existence of a God who, for example, 'punches all people in the face on wednesday, every wednesday.' Whilst you may prove the existence of an individual or object that indeed does 'punch people in the face on wednesday, every wednesday,' you cannot prove anything else about that individual. Thus, the individual may well not be a God. Thus you have not provided evidence for a God, you have only provided evidence for a being whom punches people in the face on wednesday, every wednesday. You can make no other assumptions from this.

My opponent goes on to argue that 'if a god that will stop global warming if we become pirates [1] exists, then we would know that becoming pirates is a good idea.' However, there is no way to prove or that a God exists that will stop global warming if we all become pirates due to lack of good evidence for either side. Thus there is no point discussing whether or not there is a God as there is no evidence for any Gods, there is also no evidence to disprove any God exists.

Even if there was evidence to prove that a God exists, which is impossible, that does not prove that we should worship God. All you would have achieved is prove the existence of a deity. This would not mean that religious people were right to worship the deity. Nor would it prove that scientists should look to a certain type of religious text for advice as the deity may not have had anything to do with the writing of it. Perhaps, even if a deity was proven to exist, the deity may be an advocate for murder. Then what? Do we decide that 'well what the deity decides is right so we'd better do as they want.' No, there would still be arguments about whether or not we should do as the deity thinks is right.

Over to you, con.
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

REBUTTALS

Pro has 4 main arguments:

1: "GOD" IS SUBJECTIVE; THUS, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE THAT A GOD EXISTS
Pro states: "God is a subjective concept and therefore not easily defined. Therefore ascertaining whether or not their is a certain God does not prove anything about other types of Gods."

1: A god does not need to be subjective, as can be seen in the examples of gods that I provided. This means that objective proof of a god is possible.

2: It's irrelevant what the qualities of other gods are. This is like kritiking the theory of gravity because it doesn't explain thermodynamics. Proving that a god exists is enough to be able to understand that the existence of that god exists, and thus is enough to understand the relevancy of the existence of said god. One needs only prove one god to have an impact.

2: THERE'S NO WAY TO KNOW IF SOMETHING IS A GOD; THUS, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE THAT A GOD EXISTS
Pro states: "Whilst you may prove the existence of an individual or object that indeed does 'punch people in the face on wednesday, every wednesday,' you cannot prove anything else about that individual. Thus, the individual may well not be a God."

1: To rebut, we need a definition of a god. Google provides, "a superhuman being or spirit ... having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity" [2]. It is entirely possible to prove that something with some form of superhuman powers exists; if a being had telekinesis, telepathy, teleportation, or any of a variety of other powers, then it would have superhuman powers and would be able to control, to some degree, nature and human fortunes.

3: EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD DOES NOT EXIST; THUS, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE THAT A GOD EXISTS
Pro states: "However, there is no way to prove or that a God exists that will stop global warming if we all become pirates due to lack of good evidence for either side. Thus there is no point discussing whether or not there is a God as there is no evidence for any Gods, there is also no evidence to disprove any God exists."

1: Pro provides no proof that no evidence exists. Because Pro has made a positive claim, Pro must back it up. Until Pro does so, reject the point.

2: There are HUNDREDS of proofs of the existence of gods [3]. Pro must reject each, single proof individually and in full in order to win point 1.

THERE'S NO REASON TO WORSHIP
Pro states: "Even if there was evidence to prove that a God exists ... that does not prove that we should worship God."

1: This is irrelevant. The existence of a god in and of itself is important, as I have proven, and thus is relevant, providing plenty of reason to affirm.

2: Of course there is. If being a pirate is worshipping a god, and if being a pirate would stop global warming, and if you want to stop global warming, then of course you would be a pirate and thus worship said god.

REFERENCES
Debate Round No. 3
JayConar

Pro

JayConar forfeited this round.
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

Because neither my opponent or I have had enough time to fully flesh out this debate, I ask that you vote for a tie.

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
debate is not about winning
debate is about conveying information
information has been conveyed
winning irrelevant
Posted by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
Thank you Fuzzy, but you deserve a win here.
Posted by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
It's up to you mate, if you want this win then go ahead and take it, I should have made sure I had time before starting it.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
It's fine. If you want, I can ask for a no-vote for this debate, since neither of us had the time. Y/N?
Posted by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
Whoops I forfeited. Sorry about that, I was going to post an argument but then real life happened :(
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
nope, can't see round 2 in this either
Posted by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
Calculated
Posted by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
I got to it with 27 seconds left :L
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
don't jinx it
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
OHHHH SNAP! (again)
Jay's gonna ff for the 1st time evah!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
JayConarFuzzyCatPotatoTied
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: Voting for a tie because debaters lacked time to discuss whether God is irrelevant and worth discussing. I guess they found the debate irrelevant and not worth discussing for some odd reason.