The Instigator
critical_mind
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Con (against)
Winning
43 Points

god doesn't exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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 12 votes the winner is...
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,369 times Debate No: 29492
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (12)

 

critical_mind

Pro

here i'll be presenting some argument for the none existing of god
i carry the burden of proof in this argument
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
critical_mind

Pro

first I would like to welcome you
and now to start my argument
1)nothing is no (space\time)
here am going to define nothing as no thing so nothing is what a thing isn't and here i am going to define a thing as all that exist and since all that exist is within (space\time) then a thing is (space\time) and since nothing is no thing then nothing is no (space\time)
2)god is no (space\time)
here i am going to define god as a being without a Beginning so god have to exist before anything so god cant be within any form of (space/time) because if god is within a (space\time) then he's not without a beginning and in this case he will have to begin with the beginning of his own (space\time) so god must be outside any (space\time)
so he's no (space\time)
3)nothing doesn't exist
absolute nothing doesn't exist in a logical sense because nothing is an inconceivable concept so logically it doesn't exist
and here the conclusion of those statement
1)nothing is no (space\time)
2)god is no (space\time)
according to 1 and 2 then :
3)god is nothing
4)nothing doesn't exist
according to 3 and 4 then :
5)god doesn't exist
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

If I'm strawmanning you, I apologize in advance. It seems to me that your argument procedes in this fashion.

Premise 1: Nothing is no (space\time)
Premise 2: God is no (space\time)

Conclusion: God is nothing

This part doesn't strike me as sound, although I'm not sure what the name for it is. At the most basic level, I suppose it's a non-sequitur.

Just because two share a property doesn't make them identical in all aspects. A random example I came up with:

Apples are red.
Blood is red.

Therefore, apples are blood.

As this doesn't follow, the rest of the argument is automatically unsound because of it's dependence on the aforementioned conclusion.
Debate Round No. 2
critical_mind

Pro

here (space\time) is not a propriety it s what something is made of
humans are made of atoms so atoms is not one propriety of humans
so an example :
1)apples are made of atoms
2)blood is made of atoms
3)so if apples exist that will lead to concluding that atoms exist
knowing that the above statement are true then the conclusion must be true
4)blood exist because blood is made of atoms and atoms exist
so also (space\time) is not a propriety of something its what something is made off
so nothing is made of no (space/time) and since nothing doesn't exist then what nothing is made of doesn't exist
and since god is made of no (space\time) then god is made of nothing therefore He's nothing making my argument valid
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

You can't be 'made of' space and time. You're made of matter. You exist in space and time. Therefore, existance in space and time is a property you possess, not what you're composed of.

Extend the rest of my argument.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Smithereens 3 years ago
Smithereens
my, what a lot of votes for so few views.
Posted by KeytarHero 3 years ago
KeytarHero
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 3 years ago
Deadlykris
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 3 years ago
wrichcirw
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 3 years ago
wrichcirw
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 3 years ago
wrichcirw
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 3 years ago
wrichcirw
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.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
critical_mindAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: con showed that pros arguments were invalid.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 3 years ago
Smithereens
critical_mindAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: trololol Amty, you acted the commentator here, but a victory is still a victory. I give Amty the arguments point for not raising fallacious arguments as the only means of supporting his case. In the end, his arguments were standing unrefuted, and his objection that you cannot be made of space-time stumped Pros case.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 3 years ago
KeytarHero
critical_mindAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument was invalid and unsound, committing at least two fallacies (as I mentioned in the comments). Spelling and grammar, plus arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
critical_mindAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed that Pro's argument was invalid, and Con's S&G were better than Pro's.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 3 years ago
jh1234l
critical_mindAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: S/G to con because pro had poor spelling, arguments to con because pro's arguments are adequately refuted by him.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
critical_mindAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument, as Con points out, is not valid.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 3 years ago
Deadlykris
critical_mindAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: While I agree with Pro on principle, he made no valid, logical argument. Con wins on S&G as well as Arguments.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
critical_mindAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Really bad argument. Con is right in saying "Just because two share a property doesn't make them identical in all aspects" There's a name for that. It's called the fallacy of composition. Con's argument is based on that and is very flawed.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
critical_mindAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: see comments
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
critical_mindAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
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 Checkmark-1 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 arguement didn't make much sense, and what little sense it did make was aptly refuted by Con. Apples are blood for example.