The Instigator
chris27862
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RyuuKyuzo
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

agnosticism

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
RyuuKyuzo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/29/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 809 times Debate No: 25908
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

chris27862

Pro

It is very simple no human can tell you whether or not a god exists...
however, all things being equal-the simplest explanation that fits the facts is always the correct answer...
RyuuKyuzo

Con

I accept. Given that Pro has not stated whether first round is for acceptance or not, and given that this debate is only 2 rounds, I'm going to start immediately.

Resolution

Pro hasn't outlined a specific resolution, but given what he's said thus far I gather that the resolution is as follows;
Agnosticism is the superior position.

As con, I will be arguing against this resolution.

Burden of Proof

BOP will be shared.

Definitions

1. Agnostic
- someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively. [1]


Counter Arguments

My opponent has given what appears to be one argument for his position. This argument is that, "all things being equal-the simplest explanation that fits the facts is always the correct answer...". Given that my opponent is 'Pro agnosticism', it follows that he contends agnosticism is the simplest explanation that fits all the facts. This is more of a contention than an argument as Pro has not stated what these "facts" are. My contention is that , based on modern quantum physics, atheism is the position that is the most simple and most in-line with the facts.

1. SuperString-Theory

Super-string theories are the leading theories in quantum physics to date. They postulate that there are higher spatial dimensions above the perceivable three-dimensional universe we are all so familiar with. That is to say, the fourth dimension is comprised of an infinite amount of three-dimensional universes and an infinite amount of timeliness therein. The fifth dimension is comprised of an infinite amount of four-dimensional branes, so on and so forth until you reach the tenth dimension (some theories go above 10, but for the purposes of this debate we'll just go with 10). [2]

Given this, I put forth the following argument;

C1 - Reality contains both an infinite amount of energy and an infinite amount of time (in accordance with modern superstring-theories)

C2 - An infinite amount of time and energy is enough to guarantee that literally every single conceivable (and inconceivable) occurrence will occur an infinite amount of times.

T - Our universe, as is, was guaranteed to have come about.

As you can see, there is no room for God in this picture. No matter how slight the probability of something is, if that probability is thrown over an infinite amount of time with an infinite amount of energy, such a thing becomes guaranteed to happen -- not just once, but an infinite amount of times. This argument is obviously the simplest as there needn't be any assumptions on the existence or will of a deity and it fits the facts as this argument is rooted in the fundamentals of modern physics.


Conclusion

Long story short, given my opponent's criteria for the superior position laid out in round 1, atheism is the superior position to agnosticism.

This argument tips the scale in favour of atheism as it removes the need for God and establishes that not only can this universe emerge naturally, but that the emergence of this universe is infinite guaranteed given the laws of probability. I have established that the neutral assumption is, therefore, atheism, which makes atheism the superior position until such time that either real evidence for God arises or whether all of quantum physics collapses on itself.

Feel free to start a pool over which one will happen first ;)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
chris27862

Pro

chris27862 forfeited this round.
RyuuKyuzo

Con

Extending arguments, claiming victory.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by JorgeLucas 4 years ago
JorgeLucas
chris27862RyuuKyuzoTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: WHO WON?!?!?!
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
chris27862RyuuKyuzoTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit and hardly any arguments by Pro.