The Instigator
Wanted797
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
TheSkeptic
Con (against)
Winning
39 Points

You can not prove or disprove the existance of god.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 3/27/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,773 times Debate No: 7578
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (27)
Votes (13)

 

Wanted797

Pro

After constant naging from alot of people tyring to prove and dispove the existance of god to me I have decided and I believe it completely that you can not prov nor disprove the existance of god.
TheSkeptic

Con

I thank my opponent for starting this debate. Since he has failed to define the terms, it is at my liberty to do so:

==========
Definitions
==========

[Word - God]

Stemming from the comment section, my opponent has stated that God is "the Theorized Creator of all beings and elements".

[Word - Existence]
[Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

The state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence.

[Word - Prove]
[Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

To establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or logic)

==========
Proving something doesn't mean it has to be 100%
==========

I contend that anything known through empirical means, aka observation, has at least some degree of being wrong. While we may be quite positive that the planet moves because of gravity, there is a slim but possible chance that the planets move because invisible fairies are pushing planets around. That being said, is gravity then "unprovable"? Of course not. It's still highly likely that gravity is the answer for the planet's rotation - not invisible fairies.

Apply this concept with God. While it is still possible - whether you think it's highly likely or not - that God exists, it doesn't mean the probability of him existing is nothing.

==========
Conclusion
==========

I will develop my arguments after seeing my opponent's rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
Wanted797

Pro

I first would like that thank TheSkeptic for contending this debate and I apologise for my previous comment, I am new to this site and this is my First Debate.

The first point my opponent brings forward it that to the word "Prove" means "To establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or logic)"

Now I agree with you here I however do not agree with "Proving something doesn't mean it has to be 100%" I will get to my point soon.

You say "I contend that anything known through empirical means, aka observation has at least some degree of being wrong."

Empirical means = "Relying on experience and experiment NOT theory"

What? You just contradicted yourself.

So first you say you can prove something without it being 100% but then you say that something proven by experiment and experience has at least some degree of being wrong so therefore is not proven.

Nothing can be proven 100% unless we see it, seeing is 100%
If I was to tell you that I had an elephant in my car would you believe me? well no you wouldn't because though your logic and experience you know it would be near impossible for me to fit a elephant in my car. But there is still the chance that I did manage to somehow fit a elephant in my car you don't know for sure that I do not have a elephant in my car unless you see proof with your own eyes.
If you think there is a way you could prove I didn't have an elephant in my car without actually seeing my car then let me know.

Now this is a key point for proving the existence of God because we cannot actually see him/her/it.

Your next point on Gravity. I agree with your concept of Gravity is most likely BUT there is still a chance that invisible fairies push the planets around, you may think this crazy to believe that invisible fairies are pushing the planets around, But think for a minute of the belief of God.......a invisible man/woman/thing that is everywhere and magically created everything.

And how can you say gravity is not unprovable we are talking about God here something we can't understand that defies the laws of physics also gravity works on the THEORY of relativity.

For the theory of relativity see the video

Theory = Set of ideas to explain something; abstract knowledge or reasoning; idea or opinion.
In Theory = in an ideal or hypothetical situation.
Theoretical = Based on theory rather than practice or fact.

I will expand my arguments in the next rounds.
I await my opponent's rebuttal.
TheSkeptic

Con

No problem Wanted797, you'll get the hang of it ;). Anyway, onto the debate:

==========
Proving something doesn't mean it has to be 100%
==========

My opponent's attempt at re-defining the word "prove" is at best, half-hearted. First, his definition of empirical is somewhat wrong. Empirical means to rely on experience and experiment, NOT THEORETICAL[1], which is much different from theory.

[quote]"So first you say you can prove something without it being 100% but then you say that something proven by experiment and experience has at least some degree of being wrong so therefore is not proven."[quote]

When did I EVER say that? That is a strawman - you have misrepresented my argument. I argued that to be "proven", in the way I defined, does not be 100% as in mathematics or logic, but only to be shown highly probable. This is because anything known through empirical means has some degree of fallibility (aka being wrong). For example, we can all be hallucinating right now, or in a dream. And while that may be VERY VERY VERY unlikely, it's still POSSIBLE. Take this analogy to the concept of God. While we can't know 100% about his existence, we can know whether it is highly probable or highly improbable.

==========
PRO Claims: Nothing can be proven 100% unless we see it, seeing is 100%
==========

My opponent states that seeing something is how you can be 100% positive of it. This is, quite simply, a ridiculous claim. If my opponent is not aware, then it should be known that SEEING is using one of your five senses, sight. By definition, sight falls under the category of empirical evidence. So by pure definition, my opponent has contradicted himself. Empirical means is not 100%, sight is empirical, therefore sight is not 100%!

Now back to the elephant. Let's say you do visually verify something. But does that mean you have 100% knowledge that it exists? Of course not! There's still a chance, no matter how low, that perhaps you are hallucinating. Perhaps everyone is hallucinating. Perhaps you are dreaming. Perhaps everyone is dreaming. The possibilities are endless, despite how unlikely.

[quote]"But think for a minute of the belief of God.......a invisible man/woman/thing that is everywhere and magically created everything."[quote]

Yes, God could've just done everything (in this case, in place of fairies), but that's part of the point. Knowledge of his existence is at best empirical, but that doesn't mean we can make an intelligent estimate on his existence.

==========
Conclusion
==========

I'm sorry, but I cannot view my opponent's video (my computer is messed up). If the video is on the theory of relativity however, and not so much agnosticism, then I don't think it even needs to be a part of this debate. If it was something vital to his side, then I urge him to just type it next time. That said, the rest of my opponent's argument is, at best, a red herring.

---References---
1. http://www.merriam...
Debate Round No. 2
Wanted797

Pro

First of all we seem to have gone of topic.
My argument is "You cannot prove or disprove the existence of god."
And my opponent seems to have jumped around the word "prove"

What do you call "proof"?

Well my opponent seems to believe that proof is something that shows that God most likely or lest likely exists. (And tried to apply this belief to other aspects of life, when the issue of God cannot be.)

My opponent is significantly wrong here.
Proof is however = "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth."
http://dictionary.reference.com...

What evidence is there that the existence of God is true?
What evidence is there that the non-existence of God is true?

Evidence being = "that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof."
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Now this itself says that if you was to supplied me with some information that you say "proved" God was real or not real and there is a chance that it is wrong because you obtained it via logic, and maths then therefore it is not "Proof"
Because it does not give me "Ground for Belief" aka "Evidence"
No Evidence sufficient to establish a thing is true then no Proof.

In the end this would come down to own personal choice and what you see as evidence.
=========
My video was placed there for people to understand the theory of Relativity if they wished. It was not significant.
TheSkeptic

Con

Audience, this debate is over.

My opponent has supplied no real argument in his last round, but he merely reiterated his previous claims. He has still yet to leave the muck of the definition of "prove", and I'll just respond to his several of his misunderstandings

==========
Definition of "Prove
==========

We have been over the definition of "prove". Even if my opponent desired for another definition of "prove, he failed to do so in his first round, so defining the terms was left to me.

[quote]"Now this itself says that if you was to supplied me with some information that you say "proved" God was real or not real and there is a chance that it is wrong because you obtained it via logic, and maths then therefore it is not "Proof". Because it does not give me "Ground for Belief" aka "Evidence". No Evidence sufficient to establish a thing is true then no Proof."[quote]

My opponent misses the point. Showing that something is highly likely to be true IS GIVING EVIDENCE. As I said before, nothing empirically known can be 100& by virtue of brain-in-a-vat scenarios. My opponent has completely dropped this point and focused onto semantics.

[quote]"In the end this would come down to own personal choice and what you see as evidence."[quote]

Personal choice? What "you" see as evidence? Is this quote at all relevant? Because if it is, my opponent is basically saying we can arbitrarily determine what is evidence - something quite ridiculous.

==========
Conclusion
==========

My opponent has offered no real argument for his final round. He has attempted to change the definition of "prove" when it has already been set, and he has completely dropped my argument pertaining to how empirical evidence has some possibility of being false.

This debate goes to CON - no doubt about it.
Debate Round No. 3
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wanted797 7 years ago
Wanted797
"My point was that the proof depends upon the definition." Well then if we take this into account and the fact that eveyone takes things differently we can conclude that you cannot prove god DOES or does NOT exisit.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
"I ask you RoyLatham "Prove the existance of God"..." My point was that the proof depends upon the definition. Many people believe Barack Obama is a deity and that his existence is proved by the evening news. Various god-kings are proved that way. Disproving gods is often easier, the Argument from Evil disproves the existence of the classically defined omnipotent, omniscient, and good Christian God. (That is usually remedied by slacking off on omnipotence.) Volcano gods are disproved by defying them and observing that no eruption occurs.

So to prove the resolution you must assert a definition of God, and then show why no observation could possibly disprove it. Asserting that God does nothing but create the universe would be a good start, because doing nothing seems immune to proof or disproof. However, "create the universe" is potentially disprovable by a future proof that the universe always existed or was created by chance. A god that does absolutely nothing ever cannot be proved or disproved, but one would have to assert that odd definition.
Posted by Wanted797 8 years ago
Wanted797
If for something to be proven skeptic it has to be by empherical means then how do you propose we "prove" the existance of god by using empherical means?..........we can't see him.... we can't hear him..........we can't touch him...........we can't smell him............now can we devise and experiment that will show wether it highly probably he does or dosn't exist because if we had then i'm sure it would have been done by now...................
Posted by grayron 8 years ago
grayron
i think this debate was just two people trying to define "prove" and "God". If you think extremely philosophic than nothing can be proven or disprove except for my own existance. That doesn't means I have a soul it just means that "I think therefore I am."
Posted by Wanted797 8 years ago
Wanted797
I ask you RoyLatham "Prove the existance of God"
Posted by TFranklin62 8 years ago
TFranklin62
no one really got to the point, skeptic did a little, work on the point, not just refuting the others' argument
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro did not make an affirmative case. An affirmative case would involve a definition of God and a line of reasoning as to why a definitive answer could never be achieved. With no case, Pro loses.

The definition of God is critical because some gods can be clearly disproved and others cannot. The classically defined Christian God is disproved by the Argument from Evil and the Argument from Non-Belief. However, that can fixed by a definition that slacks off on "omnipotence." Other gods, like the Deist God, do nothing that could potentially be observed, so, it seems, cannot be proved or disproved. Some naturalistic definition of God, per "God is nature," might be provable.

The definition of "proof" was a good discussion. Note that in law, there are defined levels of proof. In a criminal case proof is "beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond any doubt..." In general, it seems that there is no proof that can be beyond any doubt.

My advice to Pro is to always build a good opening argument. Define the key terms and tell why you advocate the position you are advocating.
Posted by Wanted797 8 years ago
Wanted797
"1. Defining terms and definitions is vital to a debate
2. You failed to define your terms first, therefore it was my right to first define them"

You said that after I said "Honestly Skeptic you attempt to win debates by only using YOUR definition of a word are futile, and pathetic."

Could you be agreeing with me?
I think so as you did not defend my claim
Posted by Wanted797 8 years ago
Wanted797
That is why I appoligised
Posted by Wanted797 8 years ago
Wanted797
I am mearly telling you that because it was my first I did not define my terms.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by DictatorIsaac 7 years ago
DictatorIsaac
Wanted797TheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Wanted797TheSkepticTied
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 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
Wanted797TheSkepticTied
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 studentathletechristian8 8 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Wanted797TheSkepticTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by dragonfire1414 8 years ago
dragonfire1414
Wanted797TheSkepticTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by grayron 8 years ago
grayron
Wanted797TheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Diebold 8 years ago
Diebold
Wanted797TheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by hauki20 8 years ago
hauki20
Wanted797TheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Xie-Xijivuli 8 years ago
Xie-Xijivuli
Wanted797TheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Vote Placed by sorc 8 years ago
sorc
Wanted797TheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70