The Instigator
grahamreiver
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
MeganLoaskia
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

You cannot absolutely disprove the existence of the Christian 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  
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: 3/21/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,934 times Debate No: 11498
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (39)
Votes (6)

 

grahamreiver

Pro

You cannot absolutely disprove the existence of the Christian God.

For some people, the Christian God exists. In their reality, based on their perception, God exists.

Our reality is based on our perception of reality. You cannot prove that their perception is incorrect. This is because there is not an absolutely correct perception. There is also not an absolutely incorrect perception. That would be a purely subjective assumption.

I rest my case.
MeganLoaskia

Con

I thank My opponent for starting the following debate.

My opponent explains that " The christian god exsists in their reality based on their perception"
, This statement confuses me, what reality, how many different realitys are they?

Perception, or being "perceptive" does not hold much significance to the real world, Say if you were to hallucinate a talking tree due to drugs or what not, would it be right to say that there was a " talking tree " because of the persons perception ?

I think your whole arguement is based more on psychological fantasy rather than reality as people don"t have to" percept " god exsists because there is facts there that tell them he does and facts that tell people he dosent.

There is such thing as incorrect perceptions such as not understanding something or someone and then making an opinion about it, this could be called an incorrect perception , or say a man who was falsely accused of murder for years and people accused and branded him this could also be called an "incorrect perception.

Therfore i believe as much as christians can "prove" the exsistence of god , people, athiests etc can "disprove" the exsistence of god.

Thankyou.
Debate Round No. 1
grahamreiver

Pro

You wrote the following:

"My opponent explains that " The christian god exsists in their reality based on their perception"
, This statement confuses me, what reality, how many different realitys are they?"

I am writing about the individual's reality. Everyone that has the ability of perception has a different reality due to their own personal perception.

You also wrote the following:

"Perception, or being "perceptive" does not hold much significance to the real world, Say if you were to hallucinate a talking tree due to drugs or what not, would it be right to say that there was a " talking tree " because of the persons perception ?"

Actually what you perceive to be true is your reality. If I see God, then God exists in my reality based on my perception. I cannot speak for you. For you, God may not exist in your reality. So you cannot absolutely disprove God's existence.

In the case of "hallucination": You assume that the hallucinator's reality should be the same as your own. You assume that there is one absolute reality instead of many different realities that are relative to individuals' perception. You have the burden of proof. You cannot prove that a "hallucination" is not actual a reality to someone who is hallucinating. During the time-frame of their hallucination, their reality may include a talking tree. This does not mean that the talking tree does not exist absolutely. It simply means that realities change when you hallucinate.

You then wrote the following:

"I think your whole arguement is based more on psychological fantasy rather than reality as people don"t have to" percept " god exsists because there is facts there that tell them he does and facts that tell people he dosent."

There are no "facts". There are only opinions of reality. None are absolute. So therefore, you cannot absolutely disprove the existence of the Christian God.

Then you wrote the following:

"There is such thing as incorrect perceptions such as not understanding something or someone and then making an opinion about it, this could be called an incorrect perception , or say a man who was falsely accused of murder for years and people accused and branded him this could also be called an "incorrect perception."

What is an "incorrect perception"? Do you dictate what is the correct perception of the world? This is an individual matter. As for the case of the jury: Who is to say that the jury was NOT right the first time? Based on the evidence they had, their perception led them to believe that the alleged murderer was a murderer. In their reality, he was the murderer. Perception and reality change.

Then you close with the following:

"Therfore i believe as much as christians can "prove" the exsistence of god , people, athiests etc can "disprove" the exsistence of god."

What I am arguing is that you cannot ABSOLUTELY disprove the existence of the Christian God. In some peoples' reality, God exists based on their individual perception.

Thank you as well.
MeganLoaskia

Con

Thankyou,

Firstly if i see the word "perception " again i might have to kill myself.
My opponent is confusing what we believe to be perceptive and what is reality,you cannot in the majority of circumstances confuse and use both of these terms.

Perception: How you see things
Reality: How things really are

To round a few things up,i quote My opponent writes

"I am writing about the individual's reality. Everyone that has the ability of perception has a different reality due to their own personal perception"

My opponent explains without any true clarification that people can make up their own reality's, and facts do not really matter
You then describe an individuals "hallucination" to be a relative reality which it is not,,at the time to an individual it can seem like they are lost in their own reality it does not necessarily mean they have lost all control of what they believe to be real Perceptions are there to give people an indication and opinion on certain situations/topics, these perceptions are a psychological matter and do not weigh up as much as reality as wee see it or facts, therefore you cannot truly believe that perceptions can form a true reality.

Reality, in everyday usage, means "the state of things as they actually exist." Literally, the term denotes what is real; in its widest sense, this includes everything that is, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. Reality in this sense includes being and sometimes is considered to include nothingness, as well. By contrast, the term existence is often restricted solely to being

I quote you here.
There are no "facts". There are only opinions of reality.

That is a ridiculous statement to be quite frank of course there is facts, and its not based to just ones "reality" many studies that have been carried out to prove something is real has been done with many scientists , Philosophers etc, Many people whom share the same "reality"

Moreover, although i have nothing against your idealism, your basing everything on perceptions without acknowledging facts, - Perceptions come from facts and beliefs, The majority of people share the same insight in to religion from what have been told not what they 'perceive" or what their "reality:' tells them.

Therefore i am in complete opposition from my opponent, If everybody was to justify what they believe from their own reality the world would be an even bigger mess, we would have criminals walking the streets,also there is a thing called "incorrect perceptions- If you had a skeptic/ nasty opinion on someone who was found out to be innocent, your perception of them would change thus you can honestly say " i made an incorrect perception on that person"

I think this is more of a philosophical argument but you cannot base everything on a psychological matter based on one individual.
just like there is as much evidence to tell us god is real, there is much to tell us that hes not ..Although its good to have a spiritual open mind it all comes down to facts and what weighs more against what , Most people believe in something because that's what they have been told too, what evidence there is to read, and not asserting everything on what their imagination tells them.

Thanks
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.allacademic.com...
Debate Round No. 2
grahamreiver

Pro

"Con" wrote the following:

"Firstly if i see the word "perception " again i might have to kill myself.
My opponent is confusing what we believe to be perceptive and what is reality,you cannot in the majority of circumstances confuse and use both of these terms."

First, the comment where you write that you may have to kill yourself if you see the word perception again...This is not an argument. This is fluff. Thank you.

Furthermore, I am not confusing perception and reality. What you perceive to be real to you personally, is your reality. There is not one absolute reality for everyone. There are different realities due to differences in individuals' perception.

You then write the following:

"My opponent explains without any true clarification that people can make up their own reality's, and facts do not really matter
You then describe an individuals "hallucination" to be a relative reality which it is not,,at the time to an individual it can seem like they are lost in their own reality it does not necessarily mean they have lost all control of what they believe to be real Perceptions are there to give people an indication and opinion on certain situations/topics, these perceptions are a psychological matter and do not weigh up as much as reality as wee see it or facts, therefore you cannot truly believe that perceptions can form a true reality."

You have just made up your reality where you believe that there is one absolute reality. Your perception has only allowed you to humor the idea of what is possible according to YOUR perception. You have been taught that there is one ultimate reality for everyone. Therefore, your mind is already set in a pattern of thinking. Your brain has been programmed to follow certain rules of thinking. A mind that already has parameters set up cannot grasp this concept. I understand that to you, there is one ultimate reality. I also understand that this is a possibility. It cannot be proven or disproven absolutely. Likewise you can neither prove nor disprove that there are many realities relative to the individual.

Then you wrote:

"Reality, in everyday usage, means "the state of things as they actually exist." Literally, the term denotes what is real; in its widest sense, this includes everything that is, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. Reality in this sense includes being and sometimes is considered to include nothingness, as well. By contrast, the term existence is often restricted solely to being
I quote you here.
There are no "facts". There are only opinions of reality."
That is a ridiculous statement to be quite frank of course there is facts, and its not based to just ones "reality" many studies that have been carried out to prove something is real has been done with many scientists , Philosophers etc, Many people whom share the same "reality"""

If reality is "the state of things as they actually exist"...I would ask, "According to whom?" This is individual matter. You cannot say with absolute certainty that there is one absolute reality. Read my previous comment. It should clear this up.

Yes. There are no absolute "facts". Something may appear to be a fact you personally, but not to someone else. You write that scientists, philosophers, etc. share the same reality. This is most certainly not the case. Some scientists were convinced that the Earth was the center of the universe, while some were absolutely convinced that the Sun was the center of the universe. It appears to me that their realities were different. In a thousand years, humans could find that there are planets that are invisible to the human eye. They could find out that we revolve around an invisible planet. Reality changes based on perception.

Then you wrote the following:

"Moreover, although i have nothing against your idealism, your basing everything on perceptions without acknowledging facts, - Perceptions come from facts and beliefs, The majority of people share the same insight in to religion from what have been told not what they 'perceive" or what their "reality:' tells them."

This is not idealism. Like I wrote before, there are no absolute facts.

Then you wrote:

"Therefore i am in complete opposition from my opponent, If everybody was to justify what they believe from their own reality the world would be an even bigger mess, we would have criminals walking the streets,also there is a thing called "incorrect perceptions- If you had a skeptic/ nasty opinion on someone who was found out to be innocent, your perception of them would change thus you can honestly say " i made an incorrect perception on that person""

Do people justify what they believe from their own reality? This is what you are doing...is it not?

You would not say, "I made an incorrect perception." You would say that your perception was fine. As a juror, you make a judgement based on testimony/evidence. It is your duty to perceive based on the testimony/evidence. The perception could have been "correct" to the individual making the decision based on the evidence/testimony that he/she was shown.

Then you wrote the following:

"I think this is more of a philosophical argument but you cannot base everything on a psychological matter based on one individual.
just like there is as much evidence to tell us god is real, there is much to tell us that hes not ..Although its good to have a spiritual open mind it all comes down to facts and what weighs more against what , Most people believe in something because that's what they have been told too, what evidence there is to read, and not asserting everything on what their imagination tells them."

If you don't base everything in this case on the perception/reality of the individual, then you are making the assumption that everyone should see things the same way. You are assuming that there is a wrong way to perceive and a right way to perceive. You are dealing in absolutes. This is like saying there is good and evil. That is completely subjective and relative.

You cannot absolutely disprove the existence of the Christian God.

I rest my case.

Thank you for the good points.
MeganLoaskia

Con

MeganLoaskia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by grahamreiver 6 years ago
grahamreiver
throughout history, usually the "majority" totally forks things up and in the end they are the main cause of problems....the mob...the masses....groups....
Posted by grahamreiver 6 years ago
grahamreiver
i don't care if i "win" or "lose"... it doesn't mean one person is right and the other is wrong. like in my other debate, i am "losing"... evidently a 15 year old democrat from california voted for my opponent.
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
Get people to vote there's a tread on, Catergory:Debate.org, for this.
Posted by grahamreiver 6 years ago
grahamreiver
Thanks for the support, Koopin.
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
Megan should not be winning this debate.
Posted by grahamreiver 6 years ago
grahamreiver
I enjoyed the debate, Megan. It was fun.
Posted by grahamreiver 6 years ago
grahamreiver
@popculturepooka:

Logic is defined as a system or mode of reasoning. When you create a system of reasoning, you have already limited your perception. Due to this, you will not be able to observe all possibilities.
Posted by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
By definition logic includes all possibilities as that is how we judge possibilities in the first place.
Posted by grahamreiver 6 years ago
grahamreiver
@Kinesis: Logic is not always the most reliable tool. It is a narrow-minded approach. It does not always include all possibilities.
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
Logical inconsistencies dammit!
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Awed 6 years ago
Awed
grahamreiverMeganLoaskiaTied
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 
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
grahamreiverMeganLoaskiaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8
grahamreiverMeganLoaskiaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by belle 6 years ago
belle
grahamreiverMeganLoaskiaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
grahamreiverMeganLoaskiaTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Vote Placed by MeganLoaskia 6 years ago
MeganLoaskia
grahamreiverMeganLoaskiaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:07