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

YHWH's inescapable existence.

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 6 votes the winner is...
waterskier
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,041 times Debate No: 23903
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (6)

 

Hezekiah_Ahaz

Pro

The proof of YHWH is that without him you can't prove anything.
waterskier

Con

I accept. I assume the first round is for acceptance?
Debate Round No. 1
Hezekiah_Ahaz

Pro

Yes it is.
waterskier

Con

Okay, I have yet to see more than one point on your side.
But even that point is incorrect
"without him you can't prove anything."
I am without YHWH. I can prove many things. For example X=Y Y=Z I can prove X=Z through the transitive property of equality. I did not need YHWH, therefore things can be proven without him.
Debate Round No. 2
Hezekiah_Ahaz

Pro

How do you know that you don't have YHWH?
Proof presupposes order in the universe. What's your account for that order?
Your claim that you can prove things without God could simply be your "mind" tricking you.
How would you disprove that it isn't? If your going to make a Knowkedge claim, be ready to justify or defend it. My objection is that you can't. Your "atheism" reduces down to speculation and imaginations.
waterskier

Con

"How would you disprove that it isn't?"
I can't, YHWH is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. (It can't be dis-proven)
But so is Santa, the Easter bunny, and any other mythological creature. If I said there is a lama behind you but hes invisible and you cant feel him because he hates humans and can teleport, that doesn't make him real that just makes me look insane. How is it any different than a man in the sky judging humanity.

I do not have the burden of proof here though, you do.
You are the one making outlandish claims like my mind is tricking me when I solve math problems.
Who would have the burden of proof if the tables were turned except I used Thor, or an all knowing and all powerful lama. (just a random example)
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by waterskier 2 years ago
waterskier
go here to see part 2 http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Hezekiah_Ahaz 2 years ago
Hezekiah_Ahaz
Ok. offer the challenge.
Posted by waterskier 2 years ago
waterskier
I would like to propose that we continue this debate into a round 2. Will you accept?
Posted by waterskier 2 years ago
waterskier
"I have it read. Are you claiming that it's imaginary?"
yes

"Thor is a cartoon. There disproven"
that's not valid proof. By that logic all of the celeberties on family guy and south park are imaginary too. Also by that logic I can draw you, and then you don't exist anymore.

"I proved him. Did you miss it?"
yes I did please quote where you proved his existence

"Because you can't. In fact, you can't prove anything."
did you even read my parts of the debate? I proved X=Z, therefore I can prove things.
Like me and most atheist have said 1,000,000 times, I can't disprove god, he is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, but that doesn't make him real.

"It's not very likely. It is. see above"
you just contradicted yourself, unless you meant to make "It's not very likely" a question.
Posted by Hezekiah_Ahaz 2 years ago
Hezekiah_Ahaz
"why don't you actually read your holy book and then tell me what is just imaginations."

I have it read. Are you claiming that it's imaginary?

"You can't disprove that you don't have Thor. So like I said does that prove that you do have Thor?"

Thor is a cartoon. There disproven.

"I don't have to, if you claim that YHWH is real then you have to prove that he is, the burden of proof isn't mine, it's yours."

I proved him. Did you miss it?

"my objection is that I don't have to, you do."

Because you can't. In fact, you can't prove anything.

"I guess it could, but is that really very likely?"

It's not very likely. It is. see above
Posted by waterskier 2 years ago
waterskier
now that we aren't really debating and now just talking:
I gotta say, I was a little disapointed by this debate. First 2 rounds were wasted,and in the third round you provided nothing of value.

"Your "atheism" reduces down to speculation and imaginations."
why don't you actually read your holy book and then tell me what is just imaginations.

"How do you know that you don't have YHWH?"
technically I don't know, but not disproving doesn't prove. You can't disprove that you don't have Thor. So like I said does that prove that you do have Thor?

"How would you disprove that it isn't?"
I don't have to, if you claim that YHWH is real then you have to prove that he is, the burden of proof isn't mine, it's yours.

"If your going to make a Knowkedge claim, be ready to justify or defend it."
I %100 agree with this. But my problem is with
"My objection is that you can't."
my objection is that I don't have to, you do.

"Your claim that you can prove things without God could simply be your "mind" tricking you."
I guess it could, but is that really very likely?

please tell me if I'm wrong, or if I'm mis-interpreting this.
Posted by Hezekiah_Ahaz 2 years ago
Hezekiah_Ahaz
Anacro,

When did I say "God exist because God exist"?

I highly doubt you know what validity even is.
Posted by anachronist 2 years ago
anachronist
Lol presuppositional apologists, the theists admitting they have no valid arguments other than "God exists because God exists"
Posted by MouthWash 2 years ago
MouthWash
SarcasticIndeed is right, although the "J" sound is pronounced as a "Y". And it is still forbidden to make acronyms or cross out God's name.
Posted by SarcasticIndeed 2 years ago
SarcasticIndeed
It's the Christian God, or the Judaistic one. It's pronounced as Jehovah.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Meatros 2 years ago
Meatros
Hezekiah_AhazwaterskierTied
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 assumed the BoP, but never introduced an actual argument. Con pointed this out, therefore Con gets argument points.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 2 years ago
socialpinko
Hezekiah_AhazwaterskierTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: By Pro's short introductory round I really expected the transcendental argument for God's existence based off of it's supposed necessity in explaining the existence of logical laws. I was unpleasantly disappointed though. Pro's brief point about how an intelligent designer is necessary to prove that the universe is orderly (proving the reliability of our senses?) was interesting but unsubstantiated. Pro of course only had a three word second round which was confusing, considering the BoP.
Vote Placed by bossyburrito 2 years ago
bossyburrito
Hezekiah_AhazwaterskierTied
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: This was fucking horrid on Pro's side. Unfalsifiable hypothesis FTW!
Vote Placed by Double_R 2 years ago
Double_R
Hezekiah_AhazwaterskierTied
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: Pros burden was to prove the existence of YHWH. Instead he tries to claim that Con can not disprove him. That was not the BoP, nor is it a reasonable one. I found it pretty funny that Pro claims Cons atheism reduces him to speculation and imagination while stating that proving anything without God could simply be your mind "tricking you". No speculation there huh?
Vote Placed by Mrparkers 2 years ago
Mrparkers
Hezekiah_AhazwaterskierTied
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: "You can't prove me wrong" is not an argument.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 2 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Hezekiah_AhazwaterskierTied
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: Con wiped the floor with Pro's mediocre arguments.