The Instigator
nick12981
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JohnMaynardKeynes
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

god is real

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 6 votes the winner is...
JohnMaynardKeynes
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/18/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,713 times Debate No: 56835
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (82)
Votes (6)

 

nick12981

Pro

You say theirs no proof for the existence of god but there there is no proof that proofs that he is not so what proof is there. God is something to believe in other then your self science really does not know anything. Theories for everything is changed every 100 years or so. What we know now will be different 200 years from now and they will laugh at us for being so stupid.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

I accept this debate and will be arguing Con for the following resolution:

God is real


Definitions

God
-- It is evident from Pro's opening that we will be debating the O3 God. So here is a general definition from Merriam-Webster:"the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe." (1)

The O3 God, though, is defined as omnipotent, omnscient, and omnibenevolent.

I'll define these terms one by one.

omnipotent -- having virtually unlimited authority of influence (2)

omniscient -- having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight (3)

omnibenevolent -- "The concept of omnibenevolence stems from two basic ideas of God: that God is perfect and that God is morally good. Therefore, God must possess perfect goodness. Being perfectly good must entail being good in all ways at all times and towards all other beings" (4)

real
-- "being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary" (5)


My opponent, in instigating this debate and arguing the affirmative, will possess the sole burden of proof. He must prove categorically that God exists, whereas I must only neutralize his arguments and prove that there is at least a possibility that God doesn't exist. My chief argument will be that there is not enough evidence -- in fact, there isn't any evidence, which Pro himself admits -- and a simple appeal to Occam's Razor renders this resolution negated.



I will first lay out what my opponent must be able to prove in order to win this debate:

P1: If (x) condition has been met, then God is "real"
P2: (x) condition has been met.
C: Therefore, God is real.

My goal, therefore, is to negate the sequencing of his argument: to prove either that the condition he has offered is unlikely or unfounded, or that it does not lead us to the conclusion that God exists.


I'm going to begin by responding to my adversary's arguments by which he must fulfill his BOP in order to win, and then, if space permits, I will offer my own.

Pro states, "You say theirs no proof for the existence of god but there there is no proof that proofs that he is not so what proof is there."

I had trouble deciphering Pro's argument, but I think what he is saying essentially boils down to this:

(1) There is no proof that God exists
(2) There is no proof that God doesn't exist
(3) Therefore, it's a wash

The problem, however, is that this isn't a wash beause the burden of proof is on the instigator and the person making the positive claim. In order to win this debate, I don't need to prove categorically that God doesn't exist, but merely cast enough doubt that Pro is unable to fulfill his BOP.

If he condedes that there isn't any evidence for God, as I believe he may be doing, this debate is already over.

Pro states, "God is something to believe in other then your self science really does not know anything."

Pro admits that God is subject to belief and faith, and cannot be proven by science -- which, again, is effectively a concession of this debate and admission that he cannot fulfill his BOP.

However, he takes this a step further and tries to say that "science doesn't know anything." To translate the claim, he is saying that science is irrelevant and virtually on an even playing field with faith. This is patently absurd. Science is based on a method by which people test again and again falsifiable hypotheses. Faith isn't falsiable, meaning that we cannot test it, meaning that the question of whether God exists has no truth value whatsoever. There is as much evidence for God, for instance, as there is for Big Foot. If Pro concedes this point, the debate is over.

Pro states, "Theories for everything is changed every 100 years or so. What we know now will be different 200 years from now and they will laugh at us for being so stupid."

Pro suggests that science is eclectic. This is actually true. What we know now is different from what we know prior to the Scientific Revolution, and we would laugh at people who believed in a flat earth or perfectly unchanging heavens and so forth, or that we get night and day and everything around us because a "God" did it. But this is a position supporting my stance, not his. It isn't enough to say that "theories change" in order to discredit science, because all he is doing is lending credence to the scientific method. The scientific method is either plausible in Pro's eyes or it isn't. If it's plausible, this debate is over because God cannot be proven.


Now that I have refuted Pro's contentions, I will provide a few of my own. Due to the character constraint, these are by no means the entirety of my arguments.

C1) Problem of Evil


This is a summary of this argument from Michael Tooley (6):


"1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn't exist."

The crux of this case is that, if God exists, we look to him as knowledgeable of evil, including of what is yet to happen, powerful enough to put an end to it, and all-good, meaning that he would want to put an end to it. However, evil stil exists. So how can God be concurrently omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent?

C2) Occam's Razor

Here is a pretty good summation of this principle: "When you have two competing theories hta tmake exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better." (7)

In reference to this, Stephen Hawking wrote the following in A Brief History of Time (7)(8):

"We could still imagine that there is a set of laws that determines events completely for some supernatural being, who could observe the present state of the universe without disturbing it. However, such models of the universe are not of much interest to us mortals. It seems better to employ the principle known as Occam's razor and cut out all the features of the theory that cannot be observed."

This leads us to the conclusion that, if we have another, more plausible explanation with fewer assumptions than the theological case for God, the explanation with fewer assumptions is usually accurate. In this case, this would be self-creation, though I don't have enough time in this round to elucidate the case.

C3) No evidence

This similar to C2, but it's merely pointing out that the BOP is on the theist, and lack of evidence would mean that he would lose this debate. Russel's Tea Pot analogy bears this notion out (9). The case, essentially, is that it is impossible to disprove the existence of the teapot between the Earth and Mars orbiting the Sun. But if someone were to claim that the inability to prove a negative means that this must be prima facie true, we would say that this person is presenting a nonsensical claim: we would accept that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. So why wouldn't we apply this same logic to the existence of a deity?

I have more arguments, including some quantum mechanics, but I'm going to pass back to Pro since I run low on characters.


Sources:
(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(3) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(4) http://atheism.about.com...
(5) http://dictionary.reference.com...;
(6) http://plato.stanford.edu...
(7) http://math.ucr.edu...
(8) A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking, page 57
(9) http://rationalwiki.org...'s_Teapot

Debate Round No. 1
nick12981

Pro

nick12981 forfeited this round.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

Extending.
Debate Round No. 2
nick12981

Pro

nick12981 forfeited this round.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

There isn't much else to say. PRO hasn't responded to my arguments and has continously forfeited, in the process not upholding his BOP.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
82 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes 2 years ago
JohnMaynardKeynes
so many notifications lol
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
You can always debate me on anything I've posted here.

Adieu!
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
This video demonstrates that Creationism (Intelligent Design) cannot ever be considered as Scientific.
It does not belong in any Science class.

The Unfairness clause, I.D.ers claim it is unfair not to teach both sides of a controversy is Fallacious to the extreme.

Why?
There is no Controversy in Evolution, no evidence exists against it, thus there are no genuine scientists arguing against Evolution.
The only arguments against Evolution are on Religious grounds, this is not a scientific Controversy.

Claiming it is unfair to not teach Creation /Intelligent Design in Science is exactly the same as saying it is not fair to teach Batman Comics in Science.
Neither Creation nor Batman Comics are Scientific.
Thus it is not unfair to keep them out of science classes.
:-D~
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
His ministry was Buddhist/Confucian and he died, before fulfilling his promise of delivering his followers into salvation during his lifetime.
So, yes he died without making good his promises and without fulfilling that prophesy of the Messiah delivering the goods.
Jesus (Jeshua) did not Deliver!
Posted by USPharaoh 2 years ago
USPharaoh
"If the Gospels correctly reported the teachings of Jesus, then the Jews would not accept such Buddhism based ideology".... Not quite.... because If the Gospels correctly reported the teachings of Jesus then they would not have been based off of Buddhism...rather they were based off of the Old Testament (or the Torah)...as the Gospels appeared to quote heavily from..... pointing again to his Jewish training early in life as prescribed.

"They did not want a Messiah that essentially denied and denigrated their tradition"... So very true...their Laws were written in stone...anything outside the law (gentiles) were/is unworthy.
"There is no way they would accept him as such.".... and they did not (apparently)
"Especially since Jesus failed to fulfill the Messianic prophesies in the first place.".... actually there are dozens of messianic prophecies that were attributed to this being. Not sure you have your facts together on this one.
"Had he succeeded in fulfilling them, likely the entire Jewish community would now be Christian".... Can't win them all... especially if one directly challenges the core structure of organized religion...those with the most to lose will surely fight off and silence the annoyance that they perceived this man to be. Seen throughout all of history with all organized religions there are blind spots that as human nature is....obscure the truth. It would seem that Jesus basically came to defy the 'Law' as the Jewish state held... he opened the door to salvation to all...not just those with the "Law"...
"But they saw the Flaws in the ministry of Jesus."....[b]what flaws would that be...that he died?[/b]
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
If they Gospels correctly reported the teachings of Jesus, then the Jews would not accept such Buddhism based ideology.
Because they don't uphold the traditional Jewish rituals and practices.
Thus the Jews likely hated Buddhism/Confucianism and those who preached such philosophies, such as Jesus.

They did not want a Messiah that essentially denied and denigrated their tradition.
There is no way they would accept him as such.
Especially since Jesus failed to fulfill the Messianic prophesies in the first place.
Had he succeeded in fulfilling them, likely the entire Jewish community would now be Christian.
But they saw the Flaws in the ministry of Jesus.
Posted by USPharaoh 2 years ago
USPharaoh
"The Jewish would not accept the teaching of Jesus,possibly because of his teachings"...... that is an illogical argument based upon half of a stated argument.....it is sort of like saying the the Jews did not believe him because they did not believe him..... it really tells us nothing. An assumption made without support can be left as just an assumption. While you pose a couple theories worth considering they sort of fall through after closer scrutiny.
Now just how would one go about proving a resurrection ? They had no cameras and most of the written record was saved for rulers,battles or laws..... writing was later made easier in which oral record was finally dictated. How would one even prove death? Certainly the manner of death would point to the manner of crime which would point to the manner of life...all that seems fairly reliable in written record.... yes proving those miracles seems very troublesome for those requiring scientific proof...written record just can't suffice
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Very likely Jesus was thrown into a mass grave along with all the other criminals executed at the same time.
The so called Romans giving bodies over to the Jews for their own burial is somewhat inapplicable to Jesus, as none of the Jewish hierarchy who have such influence wanted anything to do with Jesus.
Possibly the Jews also threw him into a mass grave as to them he was a heretical infidel.
So the reason Jesus's body was never located, is that he never really was in a tomb and he could not be distinguished from all the other bones found in mass graves.
Oh a hand with some bones damaged by a nail, na, possibly got speared in a fight or tried to block a sword.
:-D~
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
The Jewish would not accept the teachings of Jesus, possibly because his teachings, if they were accurately described in the Gospels, which is dubious, since they were written over 30 years after his death, so even the Sermon on the mount may have been made up by the Gospel writer.
Rote history is extremely inaccurate as Rote is only useful for transmitting tradition, not historical events.

So it is doubtful that what was stated in Sermon on the mount, actually came from the mouth of Jesus.
But Jewish people likely disliked his Buddhist/Confucian teachings and considered him a heretic.
Thus his execution.
Possibly he did make the Grandiose claim of being the new Messiah, of which he did not fulfill properly according to the Messianic prophesies, so it was obvious to the Jews that he was a Fraud and thus his execution.
So yes he was executed.
But he really did not get resurrected as there is no actual eye witness accounts nor records of any soldiers having to guard his tomb, as Romans were very good at keeping records of orders given.

No evidence for even a single miracle, apart from hearsay accounts in the Bible, means we really have no Rational reason for belief in any of them.
Hearsay accounts written over 20 years later would never count as evidence in any court of law in the Western world.
Legally, Jesus never performed any miracles, nor was he ever resurrected.
The well known NT Scholar Bart Ehrman states exactly what my historical research concludes.
Posted by USPharaoh 2 years ago
USPharaoh
So Jesus was real....wow, imagine that. I was almost ready to give up on him.... but if Jesus was real, and was a rabbi then why would he be murdered by his own people? Certainly, if Jesus was real then he was Jewish... I'm with you on that one....but if, as the story goes (spoiler alert) he dies at the hands of a Roman dictate then why would he not be accepted by the Jewish faith instead of otherwise? It makes little sense.
Now there seems to be more actual proof of John the baptist than that of Jesus the Christ of that time.

It just seems at odds that Jesus would be killed by his own 'clan' if he was indeed a Rabbi as you pro-port...or I guess maybe he was not killed but just died as a great leader/Rabbi....as which there was no real record of....then maybe he was your normal run of the mill Rabbi and died normally. Wonder why he was chosen to later be written about so much then.

You seem to be headed down that rabbit hole of using the bible to disprove the bible.... can I get away with using black holes to disprove black holes? Probably not.... maybe a little more nuanced approach of using the structural theory of black holes to disprove black holes ( sort of like disliking the government for its actions but loving the government for its purpose).

I'm of the opinion that if you believe in Jesus as recorded in history (yes historic and recorded documents) then you best not cherry pick / make up a fallacy that suits ones own agenda regardless of any facts that don't support them...granted your opinion is rather suitable for your circumstance....and if weighted as such would make sense to you....up to a certain point.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
nick12981JohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 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: ff
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
nick12981JohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 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: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
nick12981JohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con scared Pro into submission with Con's first argument with many sources. Pro left in a state of fright and in the process gave Con a Conduct point.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
nick12981JohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff and meandering rants by Pro.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
nick12981JohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
nick12981JohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. All arguments and sources were made by con.