The Instigator
Sorrow
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
rougeagent21
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

You cannot prove the existence of 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...
rougeagent21
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,215 times Debate No: 11815
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

Sorrow

Pro

Reminder: this is probably going to be my first serious argument on the subject of God's existence, if I construe any logical fallacies or misrepresent something, forgive me as I am new to this topic.

prove: establish the validity of something, as by an example, explanation or experiment
existence: The state of being, existing, or occurring; empirical reality; the substance of the physical universe
God: the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe

I will warm us up with some simple arguments, then we can narrow our way down. CON can choose to attack these arguments, or make his own.

---
Argument #1
---
You cannot define or imagine a thing into existence. Our existence precedes our essence, just as how God must exist in order to be necessary and sufficient.

---
Argument #2
---
The problem of evil: why do good things happen to bad people yet bad things happen to good people?

---
Argument #3
---
There is no Designer, as there is also no reason for intelligent design. The principles of self-organization and evolution provide complete explanations for apparent design.

---
Argument #4
---
Personal experiences do not necessitate cause. We cannot assume that everything imagined in personal experiences (which include dreams, hallucinations etc) actually exists in reality. Such experiences cannot be repeated, tested or publicly verified. Mystical and other personal experiences can be explained by other causes, as there is no one suspect.

---
Argument #5
---
Which religion is the "right" one? Since the Gods of various religions differ widely in their characteristics, only one of these religions, or none, can be right about God.

---
Argument #6
---
Since God is invisible, and the universe would hypothetically be no different than if he did not exist, it is simpler to assume he does not exist (see Occam's Razor).

Forgive me the long-winded speech.
rougeagent21

Con

Greetings, all. I will address all of my opponent's arguments, and present some of my own if need be later in the debate. Good luck!

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

I accept my opponent's definitions.

=========
Argument 1
=========

"You cannot define or imagine a thing into existence."
Well, exist is such a relative word. Something may exist in my mind, but not in yours. However, I agree that I cannot always persuade someone else that something that I imagined exists easily.

"Our existence precedes our essence, just as how God must exist in order to be necessary and sufficient."
Untrue. Water is necessary for life on Jupiter, yet it does not exist there. (To the best of our knowledge) I really don't see how this argument is relevant anyways.

=========
Argument 2
=========

"The problem of evil: why do good things happen to bad people yet bad things happen to good people?"
Ah, the age old question. You see, there really is no such thing as evil. Evil is just what we tag as the absence of goodness. There is no such thing as a negative in nature. Cold does not exist, just an absence of heat. We can reach extremely low levels of heat, but we can never reach negative heat. Likewise, evil is simply a voidness of goodness.

On top of this, there is no such thing as a good person. Many people have attributes that can show goodness, but there is no truly good person. Everyone has committed something "bad" (or lack of good) in their lifetime. Therefore, whatever "bad" thing happens to someone is justified because they have fallen short of the standard of "good."

=========
Argument 3
=========

"There is no Designer, as there is also no reason for intelligent design."
That is quite the unsubstantiated statement. Proof please? How do you disprove God?

"The principles of self-organization and evolution provide complete explanations for apparent design."
I disagree wholeheartedly. I have a feeling that this will become a huge issue later in the debate. Opponent, please provide said logic on how apparent design is accounted for.

=========
Argument 4
=========

This is simply a straw man argument. I am not advocating for God because my uncle's friend had a hallucination once.

=========
Argument 5
=========

As per my opponent's earlier definitions, we are not debating about each religion's definition of God. However, I would like to point out that several religions have very similar views on God. For example, both Christians of no denomination and Latter-Day Saints believe that God is omnipotent. The same goes for Muslims and Jews.

=========
Argument 6
=========

"Since God is invisible,"
Not always. Many people have seen God. However, this is not the basis for my arguments.

"and the universe would hypothetically be no different than if he did not exist, it is simpler to assume he does not exist"
Hypothetically, the universe would not exist if God didn't exist. Believers in God say that He created the universe, so then hypothetically the universe would not exist if its creator did not exist either.

"Forgive me the long-winded speech."
Not at all. Please keep the arguments coming. I will give my own arguments later on if need be, but for now my opponent;s case has been dismantled. The negative rests.
Debate Round No. 1
Sorrow

Pro

I thank thee for responding and providing interesting rebuttals. It is now my job to try and counter these counter-arguments to the best of my abilities; I will try not to deviate until it is needed.

-----
Counter #1
-----
"Untrue. Water is necessary for life on Jupiter, yet it does not exist there. (To the best of our knowledge) I really don't see how this argument is relevant anyways."

Actually, this is false. There is indeed water on Jupiter (http://www.universetoday.com...), albeit it is very scant.

Also, notice how I worded that sentence in respect of an anthropomorphic view, "OUR existence..." etc. etc. If I had said existence precedes essence, CON could have easily made that point, but since I have defined to what respect existence is being placed upon (humans, God, and so forth), the "water is necessary" point is not valid in this scenario. It is now up to CON to justify his rebuttal.

-----
Counter #2
-----

Here, CON begins by using a very simple yet widespread "propaganda-like" example of sorts, if you will. It is most likely due to a YT video that lies by saying Einstein humiliates his Atheist professor. (http://www.snopes.com...)

There is in fact evil in this world. While this may seem like a really dumb question to ask, but why wouldn't there be evil if there is the mention of it in the bible? Also, if there is only good, then what is "neutrality"? Is being "neutral" ever possible? Or is your life only black-and-white, like CON says it to be?

There are many viewpoints from which an observer can view CON's statement. By saying that cold does not exist, we can also say we have never seen, felt, heard of, or spoke to God, and etc. So does God exist? By applying properties, we can verify the existence of something. What is God's "property"? If cold is the absence of heat, then why have I felt it every time I wash my hands? Or is that just subliminal heat? And what if we were to reach absolute zero, hypothetically speaking; is that not ultimate coldness?

The second law of thermodynamics explains that heat flows from bodies with more energy to bodies with less, so if this occurred in an infinite stage of regression, what is the smallest energy/amount of heat that could be procured? Zero molecular motion, I presume? So would that make "cold" not impossible? Or I am wrong somewhere in my thinking. Evil and good, cold and heat, are dualistic properties. For one to "exist", the other must to.

To summarize this all, cold is just another term for a relative concept. Evil and good CAN both exist, except we cannot define it using scientific proportions, so a half of CON's argument is invalid as it argues metrics of science, not religion.

As for the later portion of CON's argument, he states that (basically) everyone is a sinner and is bad. Does this not apply to the Virgin Mary, God, Jesus, or His angels?

If everyone has committed something bad in their lifetime (or lack of good, as CON states), then what is the purpose of our existence if we cannot satisfy our prerequisite to enter Heaven?

This seems like an awfully terrible thing to say. I cannot and refuse to accept the fact that an innocent newborn child is evil from birth, in a Christian point of view. If people have fallen short of the standard of good, then why is there a Heaven? Because, if this is correct, some people are relatively more good than others? Seems like a pretty canny thing to say, but this is all CON's arguments after all.

Please explain to us what a person must do in order to attempt to fulfill the standard of "good," unless this is impossible and we are all destined to be exiled to Hell.

-----
Counter #3
-----

I cannot disprove God unless you prove God, otherwise denying the existence of something that does not exist is logically impossible for me. So, you can basically say that my position is one where I refuse to accept God as existing, and where I deny His existence using proof which I will mention once CON proves God using something other than faith.

And I guess we are starting to approach contingency. This might prove to be a huge issue, but I hope I can sufficiently summarize my points. First, I want to bring up Occam/Ockham's Razor. The existence of a Designer/Creator is thought of as the best solution to the "who designed x, etc." problem. But Darwin's alternative, and scientists' alternative, is evolution. A Designer can be thought of as an unnecessary "hypothesis" in the eyes of scientists and Atheists alike. We can easily prove how natural mechanisms work in our advantage to disprove the belief that Intelligent Design is maintained as the sole inherent "order" of the universe.

The design argument can only prove (in the worst-case scenario for us Atheists) that there is a Designer. But what about this designer would we know of? NOTHING. Is this Designer good or evil, bored or lazy? Furthermore, we can delve deeper by saying who designed the Designer? Did the Designer design himself? Did the Designer always exist? This requires a humongous leap of faith, more so than believing in evolution. I will just provide this link to give examples of self-organization, this will neither prove nor dispute any of my or CON's arguments, just some background info:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Proponents of Intelligent Design claim that the perfect "fine-tuning" given in our scenario allows humans to live and breed comfortably and exactly in the right moment, place, and time within the cosmos. But using this can stem to ignorance, as what about the things that apparently aren't "perfectly designed?" What about all the things that contradict this Design? There are thousands of things this world can do to better themselves, why did God pick these flawed things such as poverty, starvation, strife, famine, etc?

Why is the center of the earth a complex, turbulent mixture of molten lava and various minerals rather than just a stable lump of rock? Actually, as Hume pointed out, the universe bears a closer resemblance to something organic, like a plant, than it does to a neatly constructed watch (with a very clear purpose and no superfluous parts, see http://en.wikipedia.org...), and as we're trying to work out what created things like vegetables in the first place, it's useless to use that as the basis of an analogy. - http://www.bigissueground.com...

Evolution is not lucky. Nature is never satisfied. Evolution is constantly occurring, no matter what. As is natural selection, even amongst humans. Maybe several hundred years from now our molars will disappear and we will no longer need wisdom-tooth extraction. Who knows? Evolution occurs for the better, not the worst. Since I'm running out of space, just read this for now (for all you readers/voters out there):

http://en.wikipedia.org...

-----
Counter #4
-----

Straw man or not, this fallacy occurs en masse amongst the Christian devotees. It plays a factor in determining the VALIDITY of the existence of God, as faith might be the only thing Christians will have left. Please note, however, that I am not accusing anyone of anything, so in that respect, do not be offended.

-----
Counter #5
-----

My opponent has not disproved anything other than the fact that my point still stands. It does not matter if they have similar views in the supernatural deity, the resolution stands that the Bible is intolerant of other religions or Gods. While we're here, I apologize, however, for not clarifying my stance earlier. I was basically implying CON couldn't prove the existence of the Christian deity, God. And I think he still hasn't.

-----
Counter #6
-----

On toast and on moldy walls. No offense, but this is not good enough for me. I have seen a faint resemblance of Aquinas on my you-know-what.
rougeagent21

Con

"I will try not to deviate until it is needed."
Uh, lets try not to deviate at all shall we?

==========
Contention 1
==========

That it interesting, I was unaware of the traces of water on Jupiter. However, Jupiter was merely for the sake of example. I could just have easily said the sun, or some other water-barren place. In regards to his initial argument, that our existence precedes our essence, it still remains an unsubstantiated point when talking about God. He claims that God must exist in order for Him to be necessary, but never explains why. Please note that the burden of proof still lies on my opponent for this contention.

==========
Contention 2
==========

I would appreciate it if my opponent would not associate myself with invalidated sources and arguments. I never mentioned Einstein nor any of the other fallacious elements my opponent speaks or. I also do not believe I ever stated that our world was completely black or white. There is certainly a grey area, and even neutral areas. The US can be neutral in an Asian war and not get involved.

"There are many viewpoints from which an observer can view CON's statement. By saying that cold does not exist, we can also say we have never seen, felt, heard of, or spoke to God, and etc. So does God exist? By applying properties, we can verify the existence of something. What is God's "property"? If cold is the absence of heat, then why have I felt it every time I wash my hands? Or is that just subliminal heat? And what if we were to reach absolute zero, hypothetically speaking; is that not ultimate coldness?"

His first sentence is completely unsubstantiated, it really does not address the topic at all. In regards to what my opponent feels after picking up the dog turds, the "cold" water is simply of a lower temperature than the room he was in. If we could reach absolute zero, it would be the ultimate lack of heat. Cold is simply a word we use to describe low amounts of heat.

"The second law of thermodynamics explains that heat flows from bodies with more energy to bodies with less, so if this occurred in an infinite stage of regression, what is the smallest energy/amount of heat that could be procured? Zero molecular motion, I presume? So would that make "cold" not impossible? Or I am wrong somewhere in my thinking. Evil and good, cold and heat, are dualistic properties. For one to "exist", the other must to."

Again, cold is simply the description we give to something having low levels of heat. Any scientist will admit that we cannot reach negative Kelvin, only [possibly] absolute zero. If they are still dualistic properties, as my opponent suggests, then evil is simply a lack of good.

"As for the later portion of CON's argument, he states that (basically) everyone is a sinner and is bad. Does this not apply to the Virgin Mary, God, Jesus, or His angels?

If everyone has committed something bad in their lifetime (or lack of good, as CON states), then what is the purpose of our existence if we cannot satisfy our prerequisite to enter Heaven?

This seems like an awfully terrible thing to say. I cannot and refuse to accept the fact that an innocent newborn child is evil from birth, in a Christian point of view. If people have fallen short of the standard of good, then why is there a Heaven? Because, if this is correct, some people are relatively more good than others? Seems like a pretty canny thing to say, but this is all CON's arguments after all.

Please explain to us what a person must do in order to attempt to fulfill the standard of "good," unless this is impossible and we are all destined to be exiled to Hell."

My opponent wants to digress into a specifically Christian side of this debate. I would be happy to engage in this later, but I will focus on this resolution at hand for a lack of remaining characters and to preserve the voters' time.

In all, my opponent's original argument holds no water because what he defined as "God" is omnipotent, but not necessarily all-loving. Again, I would be happy to have this debate later.

=========
Contention 3
=========

There is simply no way I can address this point in this round due to character limits. I will expand on this greatly next round.

=========
Contention 4
=========

I'm certainly not offended, I just don't see how this straw man applies to an educated debate.

=========
Contention 5
=========

"My opponent has not disproved anything other than the fact that my point still stands. It does not matter if they have similar views in the supernatural deity, the resolution stands that the Bible is intolerant of other religions or Gods. While we're here, I apologize, however, for not clarifying my stance earlier. I was basically implying CON couldn't prove the existence of the Christian deity, God. And I think he still hasn't."

I don't believe that is mentioned anywhere in the resolution...

=========
Contention 6
=========

Heh, I had a little chuckle at my opponent's rebuttal here :)
All I was saying here is that if God were the creator of the universe, then His non-existence would imply a very different (and also non-existent) universe. I will also elaborate on this further in the next round along with the third point of contention. I apologize for my brief rebuttals, as I was running low on time. Thank you all for your time, and good luck opponent.
Debate Round No. 2
Sorrow

Pro

Sorrow forfeited this round.
rougeagent21

Con

Out of fairness, I will not post any more arguments. (Too bad, I really wanted to address #3) Vote CON!
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by rougeagent21 6 years ago
rougeagent21
He's gone now. I wonder why he took the screenshot of when he still had 1:48 left? He should have just submitted it then...
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
Wow sorrow. Your so mature...
Posted by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
Haha, oh wow.
Posted by rougeagent21 6 years ago
rougeagent21
Clearly. Eagles' footwear is far more intriguing ;)
Posted by frenchmoose 6 years ago
frenchmoose
not my kind of debate
Posted by Sorrow 6 years ago
Sorrow
idk i am excited nervous and anxious at the same time *giggle*
Posted by rougeagent21 6 years ago
rougeagent21
Umm, I think that was a compliment...why the hasty conclusion?
Posted by Sorrow 6 years ago
Sorrow
please accept =D this will be the first out of the 20 debates u must challenge me to so i can raise my win percentage =D

<333333333
Posted by frenchmoose 6 years ago
frenchmoose
This debate topic is "new and original"
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by twmazer 6 years ago
twmazer
Sorrowrougeagent21Tied
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 
Vote Placed by jdizzle 6 years ago
jdizzle
Sorrowrougeagent21Tied
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 rougeagent21 6 years ago
rougeagent21
Sorrowrougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05