The Instigator
narmak
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tarkovsky
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

god does not exist

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...
tarkovsky
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 786 times Debate No: 28959
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

narmak

Pro

1st round is for accpetance

The god is one all powerful being.(not zues odin and all those other fun ones)

I want someone to logically debate this topic with

the rest are for rebuttals and rebuttals to the rebuttals.
also if con wants to provide logic to suggest that god does exist he may do so and i will attempt to disprove

Also to the voters i want good explinations to the votes. Do not type god rocks as a vote explination. Also for one rule for the con YOU MAY NOT say stuff like pro has failed to disprove this or his pont is invalid. If you think you have disproved somthing than say i believe his logic is flawed wih this point and then explain it.
tarkovsky

Con

I graciously accept and await Pro's case.
Debate Round No. 1
narmak

Pro

First i shall prove that an omnipotent(all powerful) being cannot exist.

omnipotent has two definitions.
1st the ability to do anythig logical. ex. one cannot create a square circle as the shape is impossible to create.
2nd the ability to do anything even the logically absurd. ex god can create a square circle.

When applied to god the first definition fails because in order to move somthing in the universe two things are needed mass and energy. Ek=1/2mv^2 no mass results in no energy. no energy results in no speed. F=ma no mass results in no force. However if god is made up of matter and energy he cannot be omnipotent as he would have limits based on the matter and energy he is made up of.

when we apply the second definition to god it also fail because if he can do anything even than logically absurd than he can create a being that is more powerful than himself. But if there is still somthing that is stronger than god than god is not omnipotent.

What we can conclude from this is that it is impossible for an omnipotent being to exist as such god doesnt exist.

It is also said that god created the universe. The universe is made up of matter,energy.space and time.

The 1st law of thermodynamics states that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. In logic form somthing cannot come from nothing, 0 does not equal 1. we know this to be 100% true.

Now if matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed than the only logical conclusion we can draw is that they must have always existed. Both matter and energy exist within time and space so time and space must have always existed. matter,energy,space and time have always existed so therefore the universe has always existed it was not created.

if god did not in fact create the universe as it is said in many of the holy books than he has lied. to lie is to steal the truth and to steal is a sin. Tell me if god is supposed to be purely good why does he sin? if we total the deaths he commands in these holy books he has killed more things than anyone or anything on the planet. One such example is the flood he sent to wipe out the earth he had deemed evil. The act of killing is evil so if god kills than he is not good he is evil. But an evil god cannot exist as he is supposed to be purely good so we can conclude again that god does not exist.

I know con will probably mention that it is impossible to have an infinite past but there is no evidence to support that claim as our understanding of time is not near complete. furthermore either way there is an infinite past with god or with the universe however the universe is far more likely than god. Nothing can exist outside of time as if something has existed it has existed in some point in time. ex. i have a birthday and eventually i will die so i will have existed in time for x amount of years. And again if god has to obey time the 2nd definition of omnipotent fails again.
tarkovsky

Con

Pro begins with:

" First i shall prove that an omnipotent(all powerful) being cannot exist...1st the ability to do anythig logical. ex. one cannot create a square circle as the shape is impossible to create.
2nd the ability to do anything even the logically absurd. ex god can create a square circle."

More to the point, he promises to lay out a case demonstrating why omnipotent beings are logically inconsistent. Thereafter, he presents us with a non-sequitor based on a false premise attempting to explain, rather, that an omnipotent being did not create the universe.

"When applied to god the first definition fails because in order to move somthing in the universe two things are needed mass and energy. Ek=1/2mv^2 no mass results in no energy. no energy results in no speed. F=ma no mass results in no force. However if god is made up of matter and energy he cannot be omnipotent as he would have limits based on the matter and energy he is made up of."

I'd like to point out a simple correction to the statements Pro made herein. Firstly, mass isn't needed for an object to be moved as a photon is a massless particle which has some energy (E) associated with it, which is directly proportional to it's momentum (p) and the speed of light in a vacuum (c). This correction is merely pointing out that the equations Pro has provided are the Newtonion approximations of the more exact Relativistic equations of kinematics and dynamics. [1]

After pointing out this small correction, I'd then like to dispense with this entire section of Pro"s case as it makes no substantive effort to establish the aforementioned resolution "god does not exist".

Moving forward now;

"when we apply the second definition to god it also fail because if he can do anything even than logically absurd than he can create a being that is more powerful than himself. But if there is still somthing that is stronger than god than god is not omnipotent."

Logically absurd is a polite way of saying illogical. The notions of truth and falsity describe only those notions capable of representation by some stated logical framework. Should we throw out the logical framework altogether in an effort to describe god, then we shall throw out the concomitant notions of truth and falsity. That said, this argument is self-defeating.



[1]: Section entitled "Mass, Energy and Momentum": http://simple.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
narmak

Pro

con:
[[[[[[More to the point, he promises to lay out a case demonstrating why omnipotent beings are logically inconsistent. Thereafter, he presents us with a non-sequitor based on a false premise attempting to explain, rather, that an omnipotent being did not create the universe.]]]]]

The creation of the universe was a seperate point from the impossibility of an omnipotent being.

Con points out a mistake with the ability to move an object as photons are indeed massless however I was refferring to an object such as an apple or a tree etc..... It is because of this god cannot be omnipotent by the 1st definition. As he would be required to made up of matter or energy to move the object which would place limits on him based on the type of energy and matter he is made up of. Furthermore as for moving a photon it still requires energy to do so and energy has a mass equivalent and mass has an energy equivalent.

con [[[[[[[After pointing out this small correction, I'd then like to dispense with this entire section of Pro"s case as it makes no substantive effort to establish the aforementioned resolution "god does not exist']]]]]]

The rest of my arguments are to prove that god who by definition is suppose to be omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness) doesnt exist.

We can prove throgh pure killings he orders and performs in many holy books that an omnibenevolent being doesnt exist as the act of killing is evil. Also if god has infinite knowledge than he knows exactly what his creations would do so when he created hitler he knew that he would end up killing A lot of people that being said it would go to prove once again that an omnibelevolent being does not exist.

Omnipotent being has also already been proven to be impossible.

One cannot throw away logic in an attempt to describe somthing as without logic one can never arrive at a truth.

have you ever been asked hw many fingers am i holding behind my back? why dont you say 11 or 15? The reason for that is we know that most humans have 10 fingers so saying any number higher than 10 wouldnt work (FOR THIS CASE THE DUDE HAS 10 FINGERS). However the only way to narrow the number of fingers down and find the truth is to use logic. if logic is not used any number is possible which means greater chance for error. that being said with logic there is a 1 in 10 chance to get the number correct without logic there is an 1 in infinite chance to get it right.

Logic can prove everything that exists as it is based on evidence.

a blind man is walking but not moving anywhere why would this happen? There is no way to answer without using logic.however with logic there are a couple of possibilities 1) hes walking into somthing 2). somthing is holding him 3)hes walking on the spot. One of those three is true the reason there are 3 options is because we only know the blind man has stopped moving we do not know whatt is around him. but if i were to mention he was completely alone with nothing around him for miles which one would you say was true? again without logic you can never arrive at truth.

And since logic is the only means to reach a truth it is the best way to do so. you can not answer a question without some form of reasoning. if you have 0 apples and someone gives you 5 apples how many apples do you have. Solve this withut using logic which by the way a little heads up is impossible

It would appear that con is wanting definite evidence to say god doesnt exist but there is only one thing that we cannot provide definite evidence for and that is imaginary objects. Everything else we can prove exists however we cannot with an imaginary object and since there is absoloutely no definite evidence to say god exists it must mean he is indeed imaginary and does not actually exist. We can only provide evidence to suggest he does not exist.

Example.

I have a friend that is ethereal and invisible.he is a 932billion year old man named gandhi He has infinite knowledge and gives me ideas for movieshe would like to see. I am the only thing who can perceive him. Can you provide definate evidence to say this man doesnt exist? the answer of course is no as there is no way to determine if he is real or not.
tarkovsky

Con

Con argues:

"We can prove throgh pure killings he orders and performs in many holy books that an omnibenevolent being doesnt exist as the act of killing is evil. Also if god has infinite knowledge than he knows exactly what his creations would do so when he created hitler he knew that he would end up killing A lot of people that being said it would go to prove once again that an omnibelevolent being does not exist."

Here I'll give con the benefit of the doubt and assume con is arguing the problem of evil. A worthy argument I'll say. However, any worth the argument may have had is lost in Con's simplistic, and rambling rendering of it here. A stronger case could have been made by pointing out that an omnibenevolent god could not allow the evil that we know has occurred throughout mankind's history. Since it has occurred, we can assume that there was no omnibenevolent, omnipotent god to prevent it. I'd respond, as many debates go here that perhaps such wrongdoings were a necessary evil that actually give rise to some good that we as humans cannot know. A rectification of evil through a divine logic rather than a human one. So on and so forth and maybe that'd entertain the pedantic bunch that may or may not comprise our readership. Sorry to disappoint but rather than project one unoriginal and lifeless argument after another I'd prefer to go about this debate more casually.

Anyway, con continues:

"One cannot throw away logic in an attempt to describe somthing as without logic one can never arrive at a truth."

Yes and I'd agree with con. The problem is con is the one who's decided to dispense with logic. Tell me how the notion of something more powerful than the most powerful thing isn't as logically invalid as the notion of a square circle? Their both nonsense. Sure if we're calling god an illogical entity it shouldn't be a problem but then what does truth and falsity even mean in that framework. If I can square a circle and make an entity greater than god than why all the fuss about making something false, true and something true, false? It just means that nothing can really be said about god whatsoever.

Finally, con remarks:

" Can you provide definate evidence to say this man doesnt exist? the answer of course is no as there is no way to determine if he is real or not."

And, just like that, con throws away his position by conceding to the impossibility of disproving the existence of some purported entity. As con was to establish, irrefutably, that god does not exist, so he admits that it cannot be done. I need no longer to win this readerships confidence as I should have already won it with this concession. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
narmak

Pro

con keeps calling me con ignore that i a pr0

Con(((. I'd respond, as many debates go here that perhaps such wrongdoings were a necessary evil that actually give rise to some good that we as humans cannot know. A rectification of evil through a divine logic rather than a human one. ))))

Con fails to understand that good is good regardless of who its applied to. Evil does not have to be commited for good to arise. If i were to go help an elderly woman shovel her drive way for no reward where is the evil committed before hand to make me do the deed? There is no evil committed i simply helped because i could. Evil is not a cause for someone being good.

Con is also using a trick which i postend not to in the rules. he is using my text but taking it out of context to suit his own needs.

CON (((((((((Finally, pro remarks:

" Can you provide definate evidence to say this man doesnt exist? the answer of course is no as there is no way to determine if he is real or not."

And, just like that, con throws away his position by conceding to the impossibility of disproving the existence of some purported entity. As con was to establish, irrefutably, that god does not exist, so he admits that it cannot be done. I need no longer to win this readerships confidence as I should have already won it with this concession. Thank you.))))

It would seem con agrees with my statement that it is impossible to disprove the existance of of an imaginary being and as such claims he should win which means in turn he believes god is indeed imaginary so he cannot be disporved. However if we know somthing is imaginary it also means they do not exist. so by con admitting that he cannot be disproved he is admitting he is imaginary and therefore should lose this debate.

The above text was to describe an IMAGINARY man. You cannot provide definate evidence to say he exists. However you can still provide logic to suggest that he doesnt exist. For example i said he was a man and was 932 billion years old but the earth is only 4.5 billion years old. But again that is not definate evidence as i never said he lived on earth for his whole life.

((((((con "One cannot throw away logic in an attempt to describe somthing as without logic one can never arrive at a truth."

Yes and I'd agree with pro . The problem is con is the one who's decided to dispense with logic. Tell me how the notion of something more powerful than the most powerful thing isn't as logically invalid as the notion of a square circle? Their both nonsense. Sure if we're calling god an illogical entity it shouldn't be a problem but then what does truth and falsity even mean in that framework. If I can square a circle and make an entity greater than god than why all the fuss about making something false, true and something true, false? It just means that nothing can really be said about god whatsoever.
)))))))))

This was an attempt to describe omnipotent by the definition in which an omnipotent being is capable of doing anything even the logically absurd. that being said it is only illogical to surpass infinite but if an omnpotent being can do the logically absurd then he can indeed make something stornger than himself making him not truly omnipotent as there is a level higher than god.
tarkovsky

Con

Whoopsies. Yes, indeed, I'm Con he's Pro. My apologies.

Pro argues:

"Con fails to understand that good is good regardless of who its applied to. Evil does not have to be commited for good to arise. If i were to go help an elderly woman shovel her drive way for no reward where is the evil committed before hand to make me do the deed? There is no evil committed i simply helped because i could. Evil is not a cause for someone being good."

Pro fails to understand that he's scooting the issue. I breifly mentioned about a divine logic rectifying evil. As I'm assuming I'm not arguing against god here (oh but wouldn't that just be so ironic, such a poetic notion.) I'm not going to dock Pro for being unable to come up with a rectifying argument.

"It would seem con agrees with my statement that it is impossible to disprove the existance of of an imaginary being and as such claims he should win which means in turn he believes god is indeed imaginary so he cannot be disporved. However if we know somthing is imaginary it also means they do not exist. so by con admitting that he cannot be disproved he is admitting he is imaginary and therefore should lose this debate."

Not being cheeky or anything, but wouldn't some imaginary man exist by dint of the fact that we're talking about him. That is to say, he has an imaginary existence and, if you'd like, we can say he has a conceptual existence.
That said, if this is Pro's argument then I'll take this opportunity to point out the painfully obvious fact that it is question begging. We do not know that god is imaginary, this much should be obvious as you've tasked yourself with proving this point. Not to mention, by admitting it is impossible to prove God's existence I am in no way admitting that god is imaginary. This is what we would describe as affirming the consequent; If A then B. B. That's it, not then therefore A, this isn't if B then A. It just stops there.

"This was an attempt to describe omnipotent by the definition in which an omnipotent being is capable of doing anything even the logically absurd. that being said it is only illogical to surpass infinite but if an omnpotent being can do the logically absurd then he can indeed make something stornger than himself making him not truly omnipotent as there is a level higher than god."'

If god can do the logically absurd then the fact that there is a logically absurd so-called "higher level" than him should make no difference. For if this be the case, god can make the logically absurd claim that this "high level" is simultaneously a lower level and still be correct with his logically absurd logic.


Debate Round No. 4
narmak

Pro

narmak forfeited this round.
tarkovsky

Con

Pro forfeits.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by narmak 1 year ago
narmak
woops lol i didnt mean to forefit my school started up again and i forgot to finish this
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Clash 1 year ago
Clash
narmaktarkovskyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's fallacious arguments were successfully refuted, and if that wasn't enough, Pro forfeited his last round. Thus, the conduct and argument point goes to Con.
Vote Placed by likespeace 1 year ago
likespeace
narmaktarkovskyTied
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. Pro says omnipotence means God can do anything logically possible. He then points out that if God is composed of mass-energy, that imposes limitation on him, and so therefore he is not omnipotent. It's a good start, but the argument is not fully realized, as it can be addressed two ways: (1) those limitations are covered by "what is logically possible" or (2) God could exist beyond mass-energy? In any event, he tosses his argument away and concedes it's impossible to prove God does not exist, and then forfeits. Points to Con.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 1 year ago
1Devilsadvocate
narmaktarkovskyTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F. But even without that, I found cons arguments silly. Con failed to use capitalization & punctuation. I think this line shows this best: "con keeps calling me con ignore that i a pr0". Pro did not use any sources.