The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

god is only true to a believer, therfore god is false

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...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/14/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 357 times Debate No: 91245
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

vi_spex

Pro

belief=false=disbelief=atheist to non god
Danielle

Con

While God might be true to believers, Pro suggests that God does not exist to non-believers, and therefore God's existence is false (made up; not real).

First, just because people don't believe in something or accept a (potentially) objective reality doesn't mean the objective reality doesn't exist. For example, most people acknowledge that 2+2 = 4. But if someone refuses to accept that 4 is the correct answer, it doesn't make the answer any less true regardless of that person's belief.

Pro already accepts that God is true (exists) to believers. Therefore the resolution is false even if subjective reality is true. For if Pro's position is that God is false (non-existent) because God does not exist in the mind of non-believers, this fails to account for the fact that God STILL DOES exist in the mind of believers.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

well "true" to believers, as they claim

god is either true or false
Danielle

Con

Please extend my arguments.

If subjective reality is true, God still exists to believers (per the resolution).

If objective reality is true, God exists even if non-believers don't accept it.

Pro hasn't proven (or argued) that God doesn't exist at all.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

reality is not subjective...

subjectivity exist

know is true
Danielle

Con

Pro says that subjectivity exists but reality is objective.

If we assume that God DOES objectively exist, then a non-believer's disbelief does not discredit God.

And if we assume that God does not exist objectively (which we shouldn't, because Pro has failed to argue said case) then God is still objectively true to a believer's subjectivity. Right?

All in all, this debate is not what I expected. I thought this was going to be a philosophical debate on the nature of reality, or a witty exchange regarding epistemological claims lol. Unfortunately Pro does not appear to be a serious opponent, and either way he has failed to prove his burden (or even try arguing my points). Since he didn't argue them, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Impact94// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: con did a better job defending their position and used more thought out arguments than pro

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain S&G. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter has to directly analyze specific arguments made by both sides, and not overgeneralize the evaluation of the debate, as has occurred in this case.
************************************************************************
Posted by vi_spex 9 months ago
vi_spex
no because, it disproves itself in a way that science can prove god false... because for that to be the case, that there is evidence for the non existence of god, god would have to be true while not existing at the same time
Posted by missmedic 9 months ago
missmedic
In a very real and important sense, it is possible to say that, scientifically, God does not exist " just as science is able to discount the existence of a myriad of other alleged beings................................ "this alleged entity has no place in any scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations, cannot be used to predict any events, does not describe any thing or force that has yet been detected, and there are no models of the universe in which its presence is either required, productive, or useful."
By Austin Cline
Posted by vi_spex 9 months ago
vi_spex
so god is real because he may be real
Posted by dude100 9 months ago
dude100
I agree with con to say God is false is an assumption. Technically nobody can be wrong since neither side is proven. I will say this that god may be real, but all evidence is to the contrary. Stephen hawking's discovery of black holes suggests that there couldn't be a god because at the point in which the universe began, There was no Time in which to create a universe because time didn't exist yet. This suggests that the only reasonable way god can exist is outside the realm of physics in which God would have no ability to affect us in any way whatsoever because our entire universe is governed by the natural laws which are in the realm of physics. Basically No God is more plausible than the existence of a God.
Posted by vi_spex 9 months ago
vi_spex
you guys realize the words you type are on public display?

guess not
Posted by vi_spex 9 months ago
vi_spex
if he is coming on to you dont get temtped, just do your thing right?
Posted by Arnold_Benjaman 9 months ago
Arnold_Benjaman
Gay debate
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ssadi 9 months ago
ssadi
vi_spexDanielleTied
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: Since nothing is stated otherwise and since the resolution is a claim, then the BOP is fully on Pro. Pro's arguments => R1: "belief=false=disbelief=atheist to non god". If it was true, then we get that belief is false and false is disbelief, so belief is disbelief and both are false, hence it is a contradictory equation. R2: "(1) well "true" to believers, as they claim. (2) god is either true or false." Here Pro claims that (1) since God is true to a believer, (2) then it is EITHER TRUE OR false, which is contrary to resolution. These were pointed out by Con as well. R3: "(1) reality is not subjective. (2) subjectivity exists. (3) now is true". (1) is a bare assertion. Con points out that even if it was true, then there are subjective opinions that claim that god is false, which follows by Pro's methodology to be false, hence god is true. So, Pro's argument fails to affirm the resolution. Since Pro failed to fill their BOP and Con pointed out flaws in Pro's arguments => A goes to Con!
Vote Placed by tejretics 9 months ago
tejretics
vi_spexDanielleTied
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: Pro's BOP -- to prove that God's existence is false, but is subjectively true to believers -- is not fulfilled in any way. Pro merely asserts the resolution repeatedly. Con's two responses, which state that (1) just because someone believes something doesn't make it true and (2) if that is true, then since believers believe in God, God would be true by Pro's own logic. These responses get dropped, and Pro continues with incoherent logic in the following ground. Clear Con win (yes, this RFD is longer than needed and I'm too bored to shorten it).