The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Charr
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Without God life has no meaning or value

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 1/9/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,446 times Debate No: 14329
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

Illegalcombatant

Con

It is often claimed that "Without God life has no meaning or value".
I as the Con will seek to show that this claim is not justified
My opponent as the Pro will seek to show that this claim is justified
Definitions
God = Classic Theism, All good, all powerful, all knowing, eternal, uncreated.
Opening Argument........
Common arguments given to support the claim that "Without God life has no meaning or value" include......
Claim 1) "A problem is that if God does not exist then there is no immortality"
But what is the argument here, that meaning and value are contingent on duration ? How so ? No justification is given for this link, it just asserts it then moves on.
Claim 2) "If God does not exist, then evil doers can get away from being punished"
Again, what is the argument here ?
1) If God does not exist then evil doers can go unpunished.
2) I don't like the idea of evil doers not getting punished.
3) Therefore God exists.
This is just an appeal to emotion
http://en.wikipedia.org......
Consider this argument.......
1) If I die, then I won't be able to enjoy all I have worked for.
2) I don't like the idea of not being able to enjoy all that I have worked for.
3) Therefore I wont die.
Claim 3) "Only God can given meaning to life, if a person or humans make up meaning to life, its just made up and not real"
This is just a double standard. If a personal being such as a human gives purpose to something its fake, if a personal being such as God gives purpose to something its real.
I look forward to Pros response.
Charr

Pro

I myself am not a Christian. However, for the sake of the resolution, "Without God Life has no Meaning or Value", we MUST assume that-

A. God Exists.
This is because we are not debating over the existence of god, we are debating over the meaning that God provides. We can only do so if we take on a theist viewpoint, and assume the existence of such a deity.

B. The Bible (God's Word) is True.
As I will be taking on the Christian viewpoint, God's existence should automatically infer that god's word is also true.

===Rebuttals===

As you can see, my Con's first two contentions are made in error. His points (God's Existence) are irrelevant to the nature of the topic.

My opponent also claims that the belief that god and only god can give meaning to life, and not any other being, is a double standard. However, my opponent's claims only serve to prove that my opponent has no idea what the term "Double Standard" means.

"The term double standard, coined in 1912, refers to any set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another, typically without a good reason for having said difference." [1]
As god is not simply "one group of people", but rather, according to Christian Theology, an omnipotent/present deity, one can easily argue that there IS a "good reason for having said difference". To say that a human can provide what god provides is comparable to saying that grass can provide what a human provides.

===Pro's Case===

"...God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day..." [2]

Suppose that I created a hammer. The hammers purpose is so I can hammer nails. Without me, the hammer loses all meaning.
Humans are analogous. We follow the will of our creator, and, if our creator ceases to exist, we lose all purpose.

Thank you.

===Sources===

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.biblebrowser.com...

Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Con

Pro says "As you can see, my Con's first two contentions are made in error. His points (God's Existence) are irrelevant to the nature of the topic."
If Pro doesn't want to use the first 2 arguments I objected too, that's fine by me.
Pro takes me to task, for using the wrong terminology when I said double standard. Pro seems pretty smart to me, I think they understood my argument and this is just a semantic point. I shall change my terminology from double standard to special pleading.
http://rationalwiki.org...
So now it should read like this.........
Claim 3) "Only God can given meaning to life, if a person or humans make up meaning to life, its just made up and not real"
This is just special pleading. If a personal being such as a human gives purpose to something its fake, if a personal being such as God gives purpose to something its real.
Pro says "Suppose that I created a hammer. The hammers purpose is so I can hammer nails. Without me, the hammer loses all meaning."
I think this is a non sequitur and I will show why. What if some one else users the hammer to hammer different nails, or hammer something different, or just to use it as a door stop, does this mean the hammer now has no purpose ? What if Pro dies and some one else uses the hammer to do what ever, does this mean the hammer no longer has purpose just because Pro ceased to exist ? Of course not. This shows Pros claim false when they say "Without me, the hammer loses all meaning.""
Pros' argument can be summarised as follows
1) Pro creates a hammer for a purpose
2) Pro ceases to exist
3) Therefore the hammer can no longer have meaning absent Pro
But the conclusion is false, cause the hammer can have purpose absent Pro.
Now lets consider........
1) God creates life for a purpose
2) God ceases to exist
3) Therefore life can have no meaning absent God
But the conclusion is false, cause life can have purpose absent God.
I look forward to Pros' response.


Charr

Pro

I thank my opponent for his brief reply and compliments.

===Rebuttals===

"Pro takes me to task, for using the wrong terminology when I said double standard. Pro seems pretty smart to me, I think they understood my argument and this is just a semantic point. I shall change my terminology from double standard to special pleading."

As it seems, my opponent does not know what special pleading implies either.

"The most general structure of this argument runs something like the following:
  1. A person accepts a particular set of standards.
  2. This person then applies these standards to all others, seemingly consistently and without exception.
  3. Said person then finds themselves hindered by their own set of standards - this can induce cognitive dissonance.
  4. Being unwilling to accept the hindrance caused by their own standards, a person simply declares themselves to be a "special case" without due reasoning.
  5. They then exclude themselves from their own standards to make their case."[1]


This is not simply a semantic point. Both cases of double standards and special pleading rely on the EQUALITY of both parties. For reasons stated above, God has already been proven superior to humans. Therefore, this is not a case of special pleading as there IS due reasoning for God's superiority.

===Pro's Case===

Suppose I [Representation of God] created a hammer [Representation of humans]. The hammer's purpose is so I can hammer nails. Without me, the hammer loses all meaning.

Con catches on quickly, saying that "What if some one else users the hammer to hammer different nails, or hammer something different, or just to use it as a door stop, does this mean the hammer now has no purpose ?"

This is easily refuted. As there is only one god in existence, suppose that I am the only person capable of interacting with this hammer. Ergo, God retains his control over meaning simply because he is the only omnipotent/omnipresent entity CAPABLE of using us.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.
Pro says regarding special pleading " Both cases of double standards and special pleading rely on the EQUALITY of both parties"
Pro is justifying the special pleading, based on God being superior. But its not that I object to God being superior, I object that the REASON/PRINCIPLE given only applies to God. When you use a reason/principle selectively this is special pleading.
As Wikipedia says Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption (
http://en.wikipedia.org...)
As I said before........."Claim 3) "Only God can given meaning to life, if a person or humans make up meaning to life, its just made up and not real"
This is just special pleading. If a personal being such as a human gives purpose to something its fake, if a personal being such as God gives purpose to something its real."
Pro says "This is easily refuted. As there is only one god in existence, suppose that I am the only person capable of interacting with this hammer. Ergo, God retains his control over meaning simply because he is the only omnipotent/omnipresent entity CAPABLE of using us"
Pro says suppose I am the only person capable of interacting with the hammer, but why accept this ? there are plenty of other hammers/people in the real world. Once we allow that there are other people, just like in the world, Pro can't justify the claim that the hammer only has purpose with their existence.
Pro says "Ergo, God retains his control over meaning simply because he is the only omnipotent/omnipresent entity CAPABLE of using us"
Pro wants us to grant that God using a person gives meaning to life, but that a person using a person does not result in meaning to life.
But the question once again is, why does God using a human mean there is purpose to life, but if a human uses a human there is no purpose to life ?, this is just special pleading again.
I look forwards to Pros response.

Charr

Pro

Okay, as this is the second final round, I will take the time to summarize the ongoing debate before getting into my case.

My opponent seems to concede God's assumed existence, along with the bible being textually correct. This renders his first two claims irrelevant. Con concedes this also.

His third claim, on god's authority on meaning in human life being a case of special pleading is ongoing, is ongoing. To counter this case, I have brought up creationism and asserted that God's surperiority (My opponent seems to concede this point as well.) justifies special pleading, as god, as a creator, creates humans for a purpose, and we exist to serve this purpose.

My opponent does not seem to accept this. In round three, he says surperiority is not enough reason to justify special pleading. However, as he has not stated WHY surperiority is not a good enough justification of special pleading, he gives me nothing to refute, other than a few questions. Once I refute those questions, we can safely say the point is invalid until further notice.

===The Case===

Con concedes that for the purpose of this debate, God is our creator. Now, we must acknowledge that creation is done for a purpose. Now we, being objects of creation, exist for a reason, reason being that we must fulfill the reason we are created for. Hence, the analogy-

Suppose I create a hammer. The hammer exists to preform the functions I designed it to preform.
Con attempts to refute this by raising questions. He says "What if some one else users [Uses] the hammer to hammer different nails, or hammer something different, or just to use it as a door stop, does this mean the hammer now has no purpose?"

At this point, we must also take a third dimension into consideration. Level of consciousness (Or, as I have established before, God's surperiority.). As there is only one such entity in existence (We are following Christian theology), we must assume that I am the sole user capable of interacting with this hammer. This renders the hammer meaningless without my existence. Thus, my opponent's rebuttal can only be seen as spoken without full consideration of all the variables.

Ergo, we can establish that Con's conclusion- "Pro wants us to grant that God using a person gives meaning to life, but that a person using a person does not result in meaning to life." is as ridiculous as saying that a hammer can give another hammer meaning.

No offense intended, but my opponent seems a bit in over his head. He tries to maintain that humans have the same level of capabilities as God, when in reality, we could as well be simply figurines for god's amusement. Now that we have established God as having a surperior level of consicousness, we can easily deduce the many fallacies in Con's argument.

Look back and (Using this analogy to make things easier to comprehend) replace "God", with "I", and replace "Person", with "Hammer". This ought to put some perspective into things, as we are comparable to tools when pitted against the surperior sentience of god. That being said, one can now easily see that Con's rebuttals are absurd, and his case is invalid.

===Conclusion===

As I have proven that God's level of surperiority mandates the right to give us meaning, and shown that Con's arguments were made in confusion, without proper consideration for all the variables, I sincerely urge a Pro Vote.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Con

Pro says "My opponent seems to concede God's assumed existence, along with the bible being textually correct. This renders his first two claims irrelevant. Con concedes this also." Pro also says "Con concedes that for the purpose of this debate, God is our creator."

Don't mistake silence as agreement and don't mistake some one granting a premise as true, in order to show the argument faulty as the same as granting that the premise is true.

Consider this argument....

Person 1: I don't exist
Person 2: Okey you don't exist, but if you didn't exist then you couldn't claim you don't exist (showing the argument is flawed)
Person 1: Oh see, you concede that I don't exist
Person 2: "shakes head"

Pro says "However, as he has not stated WHY superiority is not a good enough justification of special pleading, he gives me nothing to refute"

Rape is wrong............but not for God cause God is superior.
Something can't both exist and not exist (law of identity) , but not for God cause God is superior.
Humans can't give meaning to life but God can, cause God is superior.
(Insert argument/reason/principle here) but not for God cause God is superior.

This is just bad reasoning and bad theology. If you can pick and choose what reasons can and can't apply to God, then God just becomes what ever you want.

Pro says "we must assume that I am the sole user capable of interacting with this hammer. This renders the hammer meaningless without my existence"

This was clearly refuted in my previous argument, hammers can't use other hammers, but people can use other people.

Pro says "Ergo, we can establish that Con's conclusion- Pro wants us to grant that God using a person gives meaning to life, but that a person using a person does not result in meaning to life. is as ridiculous as saying that a hammer can give another hammer meaning." Pro also says "This ought to put some perspective into things, as we are comparable to tools when pitted against the superior sentience of god."

No the thing that is RIDICULOUS is you using hammers to represent people. Hammers can't have any intent to do anything, but people can.

So If God does something with intent (like creating a universe), it gives it purpose, but if humans do something with intent, like living, its doesn't have a purpose. Well you know the drill by now.....

Argument something something, doesn't apply to God cause God is superior.

Pro does not accept that If God can give meaning, then so can people. Pro has sought to justify this special pleading that God being "superior" justifies this breaking of the rule.

Pro had tried to defend this position in the following ways
1) By making an argument over double standards vs special pleading (Which is an argument over terminology and doesn't address the core of the argument.)
2) By using a bad analogy where people (who have the ability to have intent) are represented as hammers (who don't have the ability to have intent)
3) By making claims that I conceded various points when I had not done so.
4) As far as their little personal remarks about being over my head, I will just let the argument speak for its self.

Either, God can giving meaning to life, and people can give meaning to life, or people can't give meaning to life, and God can't give meaning to life. Pro has not been able justify the two different standards applied in their argument.

As such the resolution "Without God life has no meaning or value" is shown false.

If Pro still wants to defend this double standard (and I use this in the general sense of how the term is used in everyday language) then I present Pro this argument............

People can't give meaning to life, but Chuck Norris can, got a problem with this double standard ? well the Chuck Norris is superior.

Vote Con.

I thank Pro for participating in this debate.
Charr

Pro

I thank Con for a consistantly prompt reply.

Okay, as this is the final round, I will take the time to summarize the ongoing debate before getting into my case.

My opponent seemed to concede God's assumed existence, along with the bible being textually correct. He then objects to this claim in the final round, YET DOES NOT BOTHER TO SHOW WHY THE PREMISE IS INVALID. Therefore, as Con did not raise any objections to the premise, we can only assume that he concedes the argument. This renders his first two claims irrelevant. Con does not object to this also.

His third claim, on god's authority on meaning in human life being a case of special pleading is ongoing. To counter this case, I have brought up creationism and asserted that God's surperiority (My opponent does not object to this point as well.) justifies special pleading, as god, as a creator, creates humans for a purpose, and we exist to serve this purpose.

My opponent does not seem to accept this. He says-

"Rape is wrong............but not for God cause God is superior.
Something can't both exist and not exist (law of identity) , but not for God cause God is superior.
Humans can't give meaning to life but God can, cause God is superior.
(Insert argument/reason/principle here) but not for God cause God is superior."

This argument can be dismissed as irrelevant also. My opponent is attacking god in general, not my point in particular. As I have also justified WHY god has authority over meaning, we dismiss this point as invalid.

My opponent also says- "No the thing that is RIDICULOUS is you using hammers to represent people. Hammers can't have any intent to do anything, but people can."

This is absurd. I don't know whether my opponent is purposely playing dumb to ignore my argument, because I think my opponent is intelligent enough to understand an ANALOGY. Yes, I have reduced the sentience level of a human to a hammer, but I have ALSO reduced the capacity of God to a person. This is to put things into perspective, it degrades both parties to common everyday entities we can understand.

I'm saying, if god was represented by person, we'd be but a hammer to his capabilities. As we can both agree that hammers do not give other hammers meaning, we can safely conclude that god has authority over meaning.

I would also like to correct Con's summary of my defenses.

"Pro had tried to defend this position in the following ways
1) By making an argument over double standards vs special pleading (Which is an argument over terminology and doesn't address the core of the argument.)"

No, I made an argument on the necessity of EQUALITY in both cases of special pleading and double standards.

"2) By using a bad analogy where people (who have the ability to have intent) are represented as hammers (who don't have the ability to have intent)"

This is justified as I have represented god (Who has abilities beyond our knowledge) with everyday human beings (Who's abilities are severely limited.).

"3) By making claims that I conceded various points when I had not done so."

As my opponent has not OBJECTED to any of my premises, we can only logically conclude that he concedes the point. I do not understand what my opponent expects of me, as I am not willing to argue for my opponent.

"4) As far as their little personal remarks about being over my head, I will just let the argument speak for its self"

My opponent then states that under my logic- "People can't give meaning to life, but Chuck Norris can, got a problem with this double standard ? well the Chuck Norris is superior."

The funny part is how my opponent likens Chuck Norris' abilities to that of God's. Which, as we all know, is absurd.

Thank you. Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by truththroughlogic 5 years ago
truththroughlogic
the debate is null, it relies on the idea of the life actually having a "meaning" that applies to everything

there is no meaning but what is arbitrarily assigned by others, even if god exists, even if he has a "meaning" for it, that doesnt make it the same meaning as humanity has for life, that meaning, even though it may be divine in nature, doesnt mean that it is "the" meaning, life has only the meaning that people assign to it

life is a property of the universe, the result of the physical laws, life is only a chemical reaction involving DNA, if anything, it means the universe is extremely complicated, but it doesnt have any "meaning" in itself or any lessons to impart

life has no meaning, even with god, it just exists as a result of the circumstances that depending on beleif, either always existed, were created by god, or just appeared
Posted by kcaulfield7 5 years ago
kcaulfield7
both of you used wikipedia as sources therefore making your points invalid and this debate void
Posted by Illegalcombatant 5 years ago
Illegalcombatant
I didn't realise the voteing period was indef, too late now i guess
Posted by gizmo1650 5 years ago
gizmo1650
"Suppose that I created a hammer. The hammers purpose is so I can hammer nails. Without me, the hammer loses all meaning."
FALSE, your purpose for creating the hammer is to hammer nails, my purpose for using it is to kill my wood shop teacher.
Posted by wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
"The voting period will last indefinitely."

Fix and I will accept.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by DeafAtheist14 5 years ago
DeafAtheist14
IllegalcombatantCharrTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
IllegalcombatantCharrTied
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:04 
Vote Placed by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
IllegalcombatantCharrTied
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:04 
Vote Placed by Sojourner 5 years ago
Sojourner
IllegalcombatantCharrTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04