The Instigator
waterskier
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Hezekiah_Ahaz
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

YHWH's inescapable existence part 2

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
waterskier
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/28/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,417 times Debate No: 23912
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (2)

 

waterskier

Con

this is a continuing of the debate YHWH's inescapable existence
link to original: http://www.debate.org...

organization:
R1-acceptance,no arguments
R2-opening statements, and arguments
R3-Rebuttals, and new arguments
R4-closing statements, Rebuttals, no new arguments

by accepting you agree that:
1.pro has the burden of proof, due to the null hypothesis
2.no insults
3.must provide a source if it is a fact.
Hezekiah_Ahaz

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
waterskier

Con

I would like to start by saying than you to may opponent for accepting

argument #1:religion is outdated
When we still thought that the earth was flat and held up on a mans shoulders, religion seemed obvious. Where did the flowers come from? Must have been god. How did the universe start? Must have been god.

But as we learned more and more we can fill the gap for god. Now we know that the earth is round, we evolved from apes, the universe started with a big bang, and alot more. At this point religion is denying proven science for superstition. At this point it is ridiculous to continue believing after science already proves otherwise.

argument #2:there is no credible evidence for the existence of god
(I am going to spend alot of time describing why you have the burden of proof)
It doesn't matter what you say, you have the burden of proof not me. Due to the null hypothesis, the default position is that there is no connection between things on an experiment, or that a phenomena is not possible. So the default position is that YHWH does not exist. The burden of proof lies on the person trying to prove the current position wrong.
Again due to the null hypothesis, we are the current position. So you have to prove the current position wrong, and in proving something wrong you need to have proof, therefore you have the burden of proof.

And in you having the burden of proof, there is no proof (at least none so far that I have seen. If there is evidence that I am not aware of please tell me in round 3)that YHWH exists, therefore the position stands that YHWH is not real until proven otherwise.

now I will state 2 arguments against common arguments for YHWH
#1 cosmological argument
I discredit this argument due to the last step
the argument says.

Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
The universe has a beginning of its existence.
The universe has a cause of its existence.
This cause is god.

This argument proves that the universe has a cause, not that god was the cause.

#2 Argument from Coercion
this states
You must believe in God/Jesus. It's your only hope for salvation. We are all doomed if we don't accept Jesus as our personal savior. It says so in the Bible. If you want to live forever and avoid suffering, you must accept God.

my problem with this is that it is not even an argument for god in my point of view. Because you need to believe the bible is true to accept this as an argument.

and now a just for fun argument, But I still look forward to you debating this in round 3
#1 paradox argument
this states

can god make a rock so big that he cannot lift it?
or can god commit suicide?

there are many other variations, but the logic behind this is
if god can then how can he be all-powerful?
if he can't then he wasn't all-powerful to begin with was he?

sources:
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Hezekiah_Ahaz

Pro

"I would like to start by saying than you to may opponent for accepting"

Great Thanks.

"When we still thought that the earth was flat and held up on a mans shoulders, religion seemed obvious. Where did the flowers come from? Must have been god. How did the universe start? Must have been god."

Did the entire universe think that the earth was "flat"?

"But as we learned more and more we can fill the gap for god. Now we know that the earth is round, we evolved from apes, the universe started with a big bang, and alot more. At this point religion is denying proven science for superstition. At this point it is ridiculous to continue believing after science already proves otherwise."

Besides the earth being round, the rest of your claims are nothing more than claims. Science hasn't proven anything. Evolution and the big bang are rooted in man's imagination. It seems like your view of "evolution" is oudated. That is, the current claim is that humans and chimps diverted from an "ape like" creature. Your claims, which are outdated, are mere suggestions. They are no "proofs" at all.

"It doesn't matter what you say, you have the burden of proof not me. Due to the null hypothesis, the default position is that there is no connection between things on an experiment, or that a phenomena is not possible. So the default position is that YHWH does not exist. The burden of proof lies on the person trying to prove the current position wrong.
Again due to the null hypothesis, we are the current position. So you have to prove the current position wrong, and in proving something wrong you need to have proof, therefore you have the burden of proof."

It doesn't matter what you say. The burden of proof is on both of us. Remember you don't know if your mind is playing tricks on you. So, here is my proof again:

The proof for YHWH's existence is that without him you can't prove anything.
My claim is that if you reject my proof you will immediately reduce yourself to absurdity, skepticism, and almost non-existence. God's existence could only be proven from the impossibility of the contrary. Your "atheism" is impossible since it can't account for anything. Just curious, how do you know you exist?

"And in you having the burden of proof, there is no proof (at least none so far that I have seen. If there is evidence that
I am not aware of please tell me in round 3)that YHWH exists, therefore the position stands that YHWH is not real until proven otherwise."

See above.

"This argument proves that the universe has a cause, not that god was the cause."

What's your point? That's not my argument.

"my problem with this is that it is not even an argument for god in my point of view. Because you need to believe the bible is true to accept this as an argument."

You're right. You need to regenerated by the holy spirit before you can obey God. But again this is not my argument.

can god make a rock so big that he cannot lift it?

Any rock God creates he can lift. His lifting power is unlimited.

or can god commit suicide?

There is no desire in God for death.

"there are many other variations, but the logic behind this is
if god can then how can he be all-powerful?
if he can't then he wasn't all-powerful to begin with was he?"

The problem here is that you don't understand what Christians mean by God's omnipotence.
God is all-powerful. However, God cannot use his power to do it all. For example, God can't sin.
This is not a defect in his characture but a virtue.
Debate Round No. 2
waterskier

Con

"Did the entire universe think that the earth was "flat"?"
yes at one point everyone thought the world was flat

"Besides the earth being round, the rest of your claims are nothing more than claims."
no they are not, evolution has was more evidence than creation, and the big bang has way more to support it than
it being created in 7 days

"Science hasn't proven anything."
I could go on for days listing things that science has proven. This is a ridiculous claim and belittles scientists everywhere.

"Evolution and the big bang are rooted in man's imagination."
no they are not, %63 of the country (u.s.a.) says evolution isn't real. Only the people that look at the facts believe it

"It doesn't matter what you say. The burden of proof is on both of us. Remember you don't know if your mind is playing tricks on you. So, here is my proof again"

this is absurd!!! I just proved that the burden of proof is on you and it was a rule that on acceptance you accept that the burden of proof is on you!!!

"Just curious, how do you know you exist?"

existence-Have objective reality or being, Be found, esp. in a particular place or situation
I have all 3 of those qualities, so by the definition, I exist.

"The proof for YHWH's existence is that without him you can't prove anything."

again X=Y Y=Z I can prove X=Z without god, but with the transitive property of equality

"Your "atheism" is impossible since it can't account for anything."
lets think about that
It can account for why I am not floating away right now (gravity)
It can acc- wait I just proved it can account for something so I have nothing else to say about this

"My claim is that if you reject my proof you will immediately reduce yourself to absurdity, skepticism, and almost non-existence. God's existence could only be proven from the impossibility of the contrary."

hmmmmm.. lets take a look at that proof
"The proof for YHWH's existence is that without him you can't prove anything.
My claim is that if you reject my proof you will immediately reduce yourself to absurdity, skepticism, and almost non-existence. God's existence could only be proven from the impossibility of the contrary. Your "atheism" is impossible since it can't account for anything. Just curious, how do you know you exist?"

1st sentence-I already adressed this I think 4 times now (this and 3 are the only parts where you even say anything that could prove his existence if it was true, but its not)
2nd-statements about what will happen if I reject the proof. Doesn't that belong outside of the proof?
3rd-already adressed
4th-already adressed but what does this have to do with gods existence

What's your point? That's not my argument.
the 3rd and 4th argument were just addressing some of the most common ones ever. But another point with that is that I have never seen any valid proof.

"Any rock God creates he can lift. His lifting power is unlimited."
if he can't make a stone so big that he can't lift it then he has limited power. So even if he does exist you just told me that he is not all-powerful

VOTERS PLEASE READ:
he has broken 2 out of 3 of the rules, and he has not given any arguments yet. Also read this
R1-acceptance,no arguments
R2-opening statements, and arguments
R3-Rebuttals, and new arguments
R4-closing statements, Rebuttals, no new arguments
I said round 2 was only for arguments, no rebuttals.

rules:
1.pro has the burden of proof, due to the null hypothesis
"The burden of proof is on both of us" broken by pro
3.must provide a source if it is a fact.
no sources at all by pro. Either he didn't do it (broken rules) or he didn't have ANY facts (if he doesn't have any facts how can you vote for him?)

I will continue the debate but please keep that in mind as you are voting.
Hezekiah_Ahaz

Pro

"yes at one point everyone thought the world was flat"

How do you know?

"no they are not, evolution has was more evidence than creation, and the big bang has way more to support it thanit being created in 7 days"

Is the "evidence" conclusive?

"no they are not, %63 of the country (u.s.a.) says evolution isn't real. Only the people that look at the facts believe it"

What facts?

"existence-Have objective reality or being, Be found, esp. in a particular place or situation
I have all 3 of those qualities, so by the definition, I exist."

But that's what you need to establish. How do you know what you call "reality" is real?
This is a circular answer.

"again X=Y Y=Z I can prove X=Z without god, but with the transitive property of equality"

That's because YHWH exists. Like I said in our other debate. Proof assumes order. What's your account for that order?

"It can account for why I am not floating away right now (gravity)
It can acc- wait I just proved it can account for something so I have nothing else to say about this"

Why does gravity hold day to day?

"1st sentence-I already adressed this I think 4 times now (this and 3 are the only parts where you even say anything that could prove his existence if it was true, but its not)
2nd-statements about what will happen if I reject the proof. Doesn't that belong outside of the proof?
3rd-already adressed 4th-already adressed but what does this have to do with gods existence"

Not really see above.

"if he can't make a stone so big that he can't lift it then he has limited power. So even if he does exist you just told me that he is not all-powerful"

When did I say this?

I said any stone he creates he can lift.

However, if you study that sentence you are trying to put in my mouth you would see that it agrees with me. Since the first negative negates the second and hence it becomes a positive.
Debate Round No. 3
waterskier

Con

""yes at one point everyone thought the world was flat"

How do you know?"

I will post my source at the bottom

"But that's what you need to establish. How do you know what you call "reality" is real?
This is a circular answer."

reality-The world or the state of things as they actually exist
I am in the state of things as they actually exist, therefore this is reality.

""again X=Y Y=Z I can prove X=Z without god, but with the transitive property of equality"
That's because YHWH exists. Like I said in our other debate. Proof assumes order. What's your account for that order?"

no X does not equal Z because YHWH exists. I'm not the only one who has to provide reasons, you do too. Why does YHWH have to exist for X to equal Z.

"Why does gravity hold day to day?"

because the laws of physics are a constant, they never change

""1st sentence-I already adressed this I think 4 times now (this and 3 are the only parts where you even say anything that could prove his existence if it was true, but its not)
2nd-statements about what will happen if I reject the proof. Doesn't that belong outside of the proof?
3rd-already adressed
4th-already adressed but what does this have to do with gods existence"
Not really see above"

see above at what!? I fail to see what anything you have said disputes that.

""if he can't make a stone so big that he can't lift it then he has limited power. So even if he does exist you just told me that he is not all-powerful"
When did I say this?"

right here ->"Any rock God creates he can lift"
if god cannot create a rock big enough, then he has limited power. You said he cannot create a rock big enough, because he can lift any rock. Therefore he has limited power (if he exists)

overall in this debate:
You brought no arguments. Only rebuttles.
You broke 2 out of the 3 rules, and you didn't follow the debate structure.
And you didn't give any proof while constantly asking me for proof.

sources:
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Hezekiah_Ahaz

Pro

"I will post my source at the bottom"

I don't think you understand my objection. It's so basic. Im not even going to waste my time.

"reality-The world or the state of things as they actually exist
I am in the state of things as they actually exist, therefore this is reality."

A classic circular non-answer.

"no X does not equal Z because YHWH exists."

How do you know?

"I'm not the only one who has to provide reasons, you do too. Why does YHWH have to exist for X to equal Z."

My argument is not why he has to but why he does.

"because the laws of physics are a constant, they never change"

Why don't they change?

"if god cannot create a rock big enough, then he has limited power. You said he cannot create a rock big enough, because he can lift any rock. Therefore he has limited power (if he exists)"

No, I said ANY rock God creates he can lift. No MATTER how big the rock is God can lift it. What part of this don't you get?
Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheOrator 2 years ago
TheOrator
Plus on the "Hez is really trolling" theory (which is entirely possible by his incitement of flame wars and obviously contradictory arguments), notice how he constantly dodges questions and evidence while constantly accusing everybody else of doing the same. Sounds like a good way to troll to me.
Posted by TheOrator 2 years ago
TheOrator
I almost was able to vote, but I hit the vote button right as it stopped and I got a message saying I couldn't be directed to the link :P Anyway, here's a how voted regardless:
REASONS:
conduct: The pro refused to appeal to teh structure of the round
Arguments: I felt con was the more convincing int he round. While con gave reasons God may not exist, the Pro simply stated that you can't prove science has done anything, which is nonsensical. I've seen him use this religious philosophy multiple times, and he still has not been able to prove that no God = no knowledge.
Posted by Meatros 2 years ago
Meatros
That's not my position Hezekiah, further I don't even understand what you are trying to say.

As to the TAG - it pretends to be a deductive argument, but it's really abductive.
Posted by Hezekiah_Ahaz 2 years ago
Hezekiah_Ahaz
Tralles,

All I am saying is that if you begin with what you are imaging then you can't know anything. That's your position:

The proof of "autonomous reasoning" is that if you don't imagine it then you can't "know" anything.

It's a really bad ripoff of TAG.
Posted by Meatros 2 years ago
Meatros
Believe as you wish Hezekiah.
Posted by Hezekiah_Ahaz 2 years ago
Hezekiah_Ahaz
Besides all the questions you evaded you've shown how you can't justify anything you say
Posted by Meatros 2 years ago
Meatros
We basically just did, Hezekiah.
Posted by Hezekiah_Ahaz 2 years ago
Hezekiah_Ahaz
It's not a point. however if you want to debate it offer the challenge.
Posted by Meatros 2 years ago
Meatros
Do you just not understand my point, Hezekiah?
Posted by Hezekiah_Ahaz 2 years ago
Hezekiah_Ahaz
Meatros,

It's rooted in your imagination.

Your arbitrary claim can easily be rejected since it has no effect on any other claims.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Meatros 2 years ago
Meatros
waterskierHezekiah_AhazTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD In comments
Vote Placed by Mrparkers 2 years ago
Mrparkers
waterskierHezekiah_AhazTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro accepted BOP and provided zero arguments to support it. The null hypothesis stands.