All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Winning
43 Points

# god doesn't exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 12 votes the winner is...
AlwaysMoreThanYou
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 1/24/2013 Category: Religion Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 1,687 times Debate No: 29492
Debate Rounds (3)

7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Smithereens 5 years ago
my, what a lot of votes for so few views.
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
Con, to give you a name for the fallacies in which you were trying to articulate, I believe Pro was both committing the fallacy of equivocation on the word "nothing," and also committing the fallacy of composition by claiming that since God is made of nothing (which I'm assuming means he is not a physical entity), then because he is made of "nothing" he doesn't exist. You are correct in that Pro's argument was unsound (and invalid).
Posted by Deadlykris 5 years ago
To lose my vote on a matter I consider to be a given means that Pro is terrible at debating and requires much practice.
Posted by wrichcirw 5 years ago
Ok, so this must be the logical fallacy:

Given, "reality",
Space/time = things with a beginning
No space/time = things without a beginning
God is part of "no space/time"
"Nothing" is part of both "space/time" and "no space/time", since it is the empty set.

The problem seems to be that nothing is defined twice, as both the set "no space/time" and as the contents of the empty set.
Posted by wrichcirw 5 years ago
Hmmm...or this is an exercise about the "empty set".

Every set has the empty set as an element. Therefore, "space/time" contains "nothing". "No space/time" also contains "nothing". God is "something" so is not "nothing".
Posted by wrichcirw 5 years ago
Hmmm...let's try this again.

Set called "reality"
Subsets of numerous "space/times" and one "no space/time", which can only have one element.
God is not nor part of a "space/time" and thus is part of "no space/time" which can have only one element, so thus God = "no space/time".
Nothing = "no space/time", therefore God = nothing.

I'm making a logical fallacy in one of these two comments, although I do not know exactly what it is.

Perhaps the fallacy is that since God is "something" he must be part of "space/time". There's no reason to think that something without a beginning needs to exist BEFORE "space/time" - "space/time" could also not have a beginning.

Regardless, my vote remains unchanged.
Posted by wrichcirw 5 years ago
How I understand PRO's argument is that there is something called "space/time", something that has a beginning. God doesn't have a beginning, therefore, had to exist before "anything", and apparently "anything" = space/time. Therefore, God exists outside of "space/time".

"Nothing" also exists outside of "space/time", because it is "no thing". In fact, nothing = "no space/time".

The question then becomes, is God the same as "nothing"? No, they are different things, both of which exist outside of "space/time". CON demonstrated this with blood and apples, so CON wins arguments.

Logically, there is a set called "reality".

Both "space/time" and "no space/time" are subsets of this set.
God is parts of the subset "no space/time". "No space/time" = nothing.
This does nothing to establish the equivalency that God = nothing...God is merely part of the subset "no space/time".

Basically, it could be that God exists outside of "space/time", as part of nothing. This doesn't make a lot of sense, but that is how I logically deconstruct PRO's argument.

S&G to CON too, PRO's diction can use some work. Appreciate the logical exercise.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.