god is not real
Debate Rounds (3)
I take it Pro means to shoulder the burden of proof in this debate, so rather than try to prove that God is real, I'll just try to refute his arguments that god is not real. Let's look at his arguments one at a time.
Faith isn't evidence
Before we can't say whether faith is evidence or not, we should first define "evidence." I would say that whenever the probability of some proposition (P) is higher given some information (I) than it would be in the absence of I, then I is evidence for P. In this case, we want to know if the proposition, "God exists" would be more probable given that people have faith than it would be given that nobody has faith. Let's consider them one at a time.
The probability of God existing given that some people have faith
If there were a God (especially of the kind postulated by the three major monotheistic religions), then we should expect many people to have faith because that God would want people to believe in him. For example, in the Christian Bible, God actually causes some people to have faith (cf. Hebrews 12:2, John 6:65). Since people having faith can be predicted from the assumption that God exists, the fact that people have faith gives God's existence some positive probability.
The probability of God existing given that nobody has faith.
If God exists, then we should expect some people to have faith. But if nobody had faith, that should cause us to question whether there's a God or not. Perhaps there could still be a deistic sort of God who is completely indifferent to us, but it's highly unlikely that anything like the gods of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam would exist.
Comparing the two.
So, obviously, P(G/F) > P(G/~F). In other words, the probability of God existing given that some people have faith is greater than the probability of God existing given that nobody has faith. Since the presence of faith raises the probability of God's existence, it follows that faith is evidence for the existence of God.
The even-if argument
But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Pro is right, and that faith is not evidence for God. How on earth does that amount to an argument against God's existence? It doesn't. I could say something like, "Orange juice is not evidence of the existence of Barak Obama," but that obviously wouldn't serve as an argument against the existence of Obama. So this first point by Pro is just irrelevant to his case. Remember, he's got the burden of proving that "god is not real."
There simply is no Prof that there is a god.
Two points: First, this is an unsubstantiated claim. There have been dozens of arguments meant to show that there is a god. Before Pro can claim that none of these argument succeed, he's got to show us that they're all fallacious. I doubt there will be room in this debate format for him to do that.
Second, even if it's true that there is no proof of God, that does not amount to an argument against the existence of God. That would be like saying that because there is no proof for the existence of extraterrestrial life, that there therefore is no extraterrestrial life. That's clearly fallacious reasoning.
Is god is real why has no one been able to see him?
That's a great question. Unfortunately, it's not an argument. But rather than wait for Pro to make an argument out of it, I'll see if i can do it for him. If he accuses me of making a strawman argument because I inferred incorrectly, that's fine. He can then tell me what his real argument is. But this is what I take his argument to be:
1. If God is real, people would see him.
2. Nobody sees him.
3. Therefore, God is not real.
That first premise is patently false, especially if we're talking about the Christian God. There are a number of passages in the Bible saying that nobody can see God and that God is invisible (John 1:18, Colossians 1:15, 1 Timothy 6:16, 1 John 4:12). I don't think God is seeable in Judaism or Islam either.
religion in general was created because back then people couldn't explain natural things that were happening. Now we know that, because of science so why keep believing that it rains when god is angry when we know it's not .
This is a classic case of the genetic fallacy. Even if it's true that people came to believe in God to explain natural things, it doesn't follow that there is no God. The origin of a belief doesn't tell you anything about whether or not the belief is true. For example, if I came to believe that the earth is round because of my belief that the earth is a giant baseball, and baseballs are round, it wouldn't follow that the earth is not round just because the origin of my belief was fallacious.
Besides that, Pro has not established that God was invented to explain natural things. While it's certainly true that gods have been invoked in the past to explain natural phenomenon, that alone does not show that God was invented for that purpose.
alilovesdebate forfeited this round.
This is turning out to be an uneventful debate, but you just never know what kind of crazy stuff might happen in the last round, so stay tuned.
alilovesdebate forfeited this round.
That was disappointing.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by rross 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit. But I think Con would have won anyway.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.