The Instigator
Agnostic_Meatatarian
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
KhalifV
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

You can not prove there is a God

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 3 votes the winner is...
KhalifV
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 639 times Debate No: 59293
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

Agnostic_Meatatarian

Pro

I will challenge anyone to prove that God exists.
KhalifV

Con

Pro has failed to provide a definition of god, so I shall define it myself.

"Pantheism is the belief that the universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity"

"At its most general, pantheism may be understood positively as the view that God is identical with the cosmos"

P1) God is synonymous with the cosmos
P2) The cosmos exists
C) God exists

Syllogism can be reworded as follows:
P1) God is everything that exists
P2) Everything that exists exist
C) God exists

X is the proposition that god exists
Y is the proposition that the cosmos exists.
X and Y on pantheism is the same proposition.

X`33;`Y--> X`33;X (by virtue of law of identity)



Resolution is negated unless pro can negate the law of identity.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://plato.stanford.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
Agnostic_Meatatarian

Pro


P1) God is synonymous with the cosmos
P2) The cosmos exists
C) God exists

Calling the cosmos God then saying therefore God exists is like saying unicorns are the universe therefore the unverse exists.



Syllogism can be reworded as follows:
P1) God is everything that exists
P2) Everything that exists exist
C) God exists

Again your basically give something a name like unicorn and saying therefore unicorns exist.



X is the proposition that god exists
Y is the proposition that the cosmos exists.
X and Y on pantheism is the same proposition.

You can call things God and then say God exists but no one could ever prove a living intellegent being who has limitless power and is all knowing, all seeing, all loving, and infinitely merciful exists.

KhalifV

Con

"You can call things God and then say God exists but no one could ever prove a living intellegent being who has limitless power and is all knowing, all seeing, all loving, and infinitely merciful exists."

Irrelevant. I did not define god in that way, I'm using the pantheist tradition of god.

Once again I restate my argument:

P1) God is everything that exists.
P2) Everything that exist,exists
C) God exists.

P1: This is entirely semantical. Pro did not provide any definition for god. It's not like I said I'm god, then said I exists, so god exists. Pantheism is an established tradition. Operating under pantheism it is unintelligble to deny god's existence.
P1 is iron-clad.
P2: By law of excluding middle it is either the case that everything that exists, exist or it is the case that everything that exists does not exist. However by law of non-contradiction it can't be the case that things that exists dont exist.
A is the proposition that everything that exists exist. A=A
I don't know how you can disprove A=A

Now this may seem entirely ambigious so let me give a more concrete example.
P1) American Black Bears are the same as Ursus americanuses
P2) Ursus americanuses exists

C) American black bears exists




So it's not possible to say American black bears exists but not Ursus americansuses, it's unintelligble.
Proposition is negated unless pro can negate the law of excluded middle, the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction.
This is to say he must prove that there is a possibility besides everything that exists exist or does not exist. He must prove that everything that exists does not exists. And he must prove that everything that exists can both exist and not exists.


Now I'm not saying god is a meaningful term. It's vague and not particularly interesting, however it is true. I'm not arguing for the anthropomorphized Abrahmaic god, nor do I need to because you did not provide a definition of a god.

https://school.carm.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Agnostic_Meatatarian

Pro

What makes those premises more accurate then if I was to say the following?


P1: Everything that doesn't exist is God

P2: Everything that doesn't exist does not in fact exist

P3: Therefore God does not exist.


In order to prove me wrong you would have to prove that the pantheistic way of viewing the world is more correct and more then mere opinion therefore cancelling out my view. If you can not do so then they are both opinions and not facts. So there for cancel each other out and you have proved nothing.

KhalifV

Con


Fact:

: something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

: a true piece of information.


"Pantheism is the belief that the universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity"

"At its most general, pantheism may be understood positively as the view that God is identical with the cosmos"

So it is the a fact that under pantheism, god is everything that exists.

Your definition that god is everything that does not exist is flawed.
Everything that doesn't exist, does not exist, this is true. However you can't define nothing as something.
Nothing is necessarily nothing, and therefor can not be defined as anything that is anything.
So anything that is something has traits, anything that does not have any traits is nothing, so it is inappropriate to denote anything without traits as anything other than nothing. However I have offered an argument and you have not negated it, you have merely come up with your own, without defending your premises. Also by virtue of the Noll hypothesis, you're argument is not important, considering you have not defended or substantiated your premises.

Debate Round No. 3
Agnostic_Meatatarian

Pro

You have proven the view that panthiests have not that God exists. You must prove God exists using facts not opinions other wise I could say panthiests are wrong and since those things are both opinions they cancel each other out unless you can prove that one opinion is better then the other.
KhalifV

Con

Again pro fails to substantiate his arguments and fails to adequately refute mine.
Once again, I state defining "nothing" as is unintelligble.
Addressing nothing as something makes it something. A square trianlge doesn't exists (definitvely speaking), however calling nothing a square circle is calling nothing something.
Debate Round No. 4
Agnostic_Meatatarian

Pro

Again so far the idea that labeling God as the universe and me saying God is not the uninverse are opinions, unless you can prove they are anything more then such you can't say one better then the other let alone that one of those views is proof of God.

God being the same as the universe is an opnion all he has been able to do is succesfully prove a point of view but not the view itself being true and accurate or anything more then opinion.
KhalifV

Con

Ok pro has missed the point.
Pan has an established meaning and theism has an established meaning. Pantheism has an established meaning.
There is no established system in which god is everything that doesn't exist. Pro's basically saying what makes pan a valid prefix and theism a word. It's complete non-sense. On pro's example why can't I just switch the meaning of existence and non-existence?

Pantheism is a derivation. Of pan and theism and the definition follows. So is there a way to derive the meaning "god is everything that doesn't exist". Well if that prior definition is intelligble, it should be the negation of pantheism, which I think pro was aiming for.
So let's say non-panthiesm. Well that would mean god isn't everything that exists, however it doesn't follow that god doesn't exists and it certainly doesn't follow that god is everything that doesn't exist. So there doesn't even seem to be a way in which one can derive pro's definition.

So from pro's definition it follows that everything that does not exist IS god. However to say everything that does not exist is anything, is invalid.

I just noticed, pro actually concedes in a prior round. Pro says: "You can call things God and then say God exists ". Well that's exactly what pantheism says, so he concedes the truth of pantheism.

Recap:
Pro fails to establish definition of god.

Pro concedes.
Pro states red herring, saying I can't prove the Abrahamic god.(which I didn't need to do)
Pro arbitrarily changes well established definitions.
Pro fails to address my arguments.
I render pro's definition invalid.

(Once again, god is a vague term that is basically useless, however I have demonstrated the existence of pantheism's vague god.)
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
I however I do need to add another premise and I should probably defend my premises elaborately. Also we must remember the argument from fallacy.
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
In your syllogism
I'd challenge both premises. However if your premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true.
My P1 is semantic, there's was not an established definition of god. Pro may refute this definition, but if it is not refuted and if the cosmos can be demonstrated to exist, then the conclusion has to follow.
My second syllogism seems to be irrefutable. P1 one is semantic, however P2 is axiomatic. There's not a possible world in which existence does not exist. If god is all that exist, then god has to exist because all that exists exist. It seems to be the case that A must equal A.
Posted by near 2 years ago
near
This is wrong:

P1) God is synonymous with the cosmos
P2) The cosmos exists
C) God exists

Your middle term (M) is God, your major term (T) is "synonymous with the cosmos" and your minor term (t) is cosmos thus using syllogism,

M+T
t+M
= t+T

the only valid conclusion you can come up with is cosmos is synonymous with the cosmos which is a logical fallacy "petitio principii".

Also, your argument is just like what is written below which is not true:

P1) God is love
P2) Love is blind
C) God is blind.
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
I recall you saying something about the silliness of pantheism?
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
my modal operator was somehow changed into"33; "
;33 is the modal operator denoting necessity.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by QandA 2 years ago
QandA
Agnostic_MeatatarianKhalifVTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was able to take advantage of Pro's lack of definitions and provide a rational argument for his stance.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
Agnostic_MeatatarianKhalifVTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had no definitions; hence, Con's is valid; hence, their logic is correct. (However, the cosmos are not supernatural; hence they is/are not a god(s). Too bad Pro didn't define God.)
Vote Placed by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
Agnostic_MeatatarianKhalifVTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't define "God" but tried to debate a God Con was not using. Con showed that in a Pantheistic worldview, god exists and did not really attempt to rebute Con's point. Only Con used sources.