YHWH's inescapable existence.
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
waterskier
| Started: | 5/27/2012 | Category: | Philosophy |
| Updated: | 12 months ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 702 times | Debate No: | 23903 |
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (6)
|
The proof of YHWH is that without him you can't prove anything.
I accept. I assume the first round is for acceptance? |
![]() |
|
Yes it is.
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. |
![]() |
|
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.
"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) |
![]() |
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Meatros 12 months ago
| Hezekiah_Ahaz | waterskier | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | ![]() | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | ![]() | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
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 12 months ago
| Hezekiah_Ahaz | waterskier | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | ![]() | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | ![]() | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | ![]() | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | ![]() | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | ![]() | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 4 |
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 12 months ago
| Hezekiah_Ahaz | waterskier | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | ![]() | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | ![]() | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: This was fucking horrid on Pro's side. Unfalsifiable hypothesis FTW!
Vote Placed by Double_R 12 months ago
| Hezekiah_Ahaz | waterskier | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | ![]() | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | ![]() | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
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 12 months ago
| Hezekiah_Ahaz | waterskier | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | ![]() | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | ![]() | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: "You can't prove me wrong" is not an argument.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 12 months ago
| Hezekiah_Ahaz | waterskier | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | ![]() | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | ![]() | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: Con wiped the floor with Pro's mediocre arguments.

















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.
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
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.
When did I say "God exist because God exist"?
I highly doubt you know what validity even is.