god or nut
the existence of religion=theists believe there is a nut inside the unbrekable nutshell, and atheists believe there isnt, while the agnostic accepts he dosnt know, and that they ofc dont know either
It is reasonable to assume that there is a nut inside a nutshell. We know this because that's how most nuts are. We have seen, touched, and cracked hundreds of nutshells in the past, and know that most nutshells have nuts in them.
As for god, there is no reason to believe that god exists, just as there is no reason to believe that the universe is inside a giant snow globe or obama's actually two midgets in costume.
some nut shells dont have nuts in them
i can also imagine there is a tiny dragon in there, does that mean that there isnt a tiny dragon inside the unbrekable nut shell?
The tiny dragon analogy is better, and I think it fairly accurately represents theism atheism and agnosticism. A theist thinks that there's a dragon inside the nut, an atheist thinks that there isn't because he has no reason to think that there is (because most nuts don't have dragons in them), and an agnostic thinks that there's no way to tell.
However, since this debate didn't have a resolution, all o have to do to win is disprove everything you said in your first speech, which I have done.
is it resonable to believe that there is a nut in it? or that there is not a nut in it?
there is no difference to believing there is a nut in it, and a dragon in it, both theism
It is reasonable to beleive that a nutshell contains a nut. This is based on our previous experience of nutshells and how they work. We know that nutshells are grown around nuts to protect the nut, and ensure the survival of the next generation of the plant. We know that the only purpose of nutshells is to protect the nut inside. We know based on our previous experience of eating nuts that nutshells usually have nuts in them. Basically, we know that a nut being inside a nutshell is probable because ouf our previous experiences and understanding of science.
However, a god is not supported by perevious experinces, our understanding of nature, probablility, or logic, while a nut inside a nutshell is. This is why this analogy is wrong.
Beleiving there to be a dragon inside a nutshell is a lot less logical then beleiving that there is a nut inside a nutshell. We know that there probably is a nut inside a nutshell, based on the reasons that I have already stated. The hypothesis of a dragon being inside a nutshell is not supported by anything, while the hypothesis of there being a nut is.\
have you experienced an unbrekable nut before?
ís it resonable to believe that there is a nut inside it? or to believe that its empty?
is it more resonable to believe that there is a nut inside the unbrekable nutshell then a little dragon?
I have not experienced an unbreakable nut before. However, since the only description pro provided of the nut was that it's unbreakable. Because of this, we must assume that the fact that it's unbreakable is the only thing special about the nut. Therefor, we can assume that the nut is similar to other nuts.
"Is it reasonable to beleive that there is a nut inside?"
"Is it more resonable to believe that there is a nut inside... then a little dragon"
I have responded to these contentions multiple times. Pro has just ignored me and continued to restate the question.
I repeat: it is reasonable because of our previous experiences, understanding of nuts and nature, and pure probability.
have you experienced an unbrekable nutshell before?*
ís it more resonable to believe that there is a nut inside the unbrekable nutshell? or to believe that its empty?
Pro has just repeated his responce, and completely ignored my rebattals, making his case invalid.
I will now quickly summarize the debate.
I have proven that it is reasonable to beleive that a nutshell contains a nut because of probablility, our understanding of nature and nuts, and prior experiences. This differs from the question of God, as a beleif in God is not supported by our understanding of the natural world (as God is, by definition, supernatural), probability (we have no other universes to comare ours to, and can't establish whether God is probable) or prior experience (we have no prior experiences with other universes, while we do have prior experiences with nuts.). Pro has completely ignored these rebuttals, and just restated his claims.
|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||4|