The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Leugen9001
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

god or nut

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 425 times Debate No: 73030
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

vi_spex

Pro

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

is it resonable to believe that there is a nut inside the unbrekable nutshell, when it could just be an empty unbrekable nutshell?
Leugen9001

Con

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

is it resonable to believe that there is a nut inside the unbrekable nutshell, when it could just be an empty unbrekable nutshell?

There is an issue with your argument, as according to what we already know, it is unlikely for there to be no nuts in an unbroken nutshell; if a nutshell has not been broken, then it is impossible to take the nut out of it. As such, the analogy you used is, in my opinion, flawed.

Alternative analogy

However, we can use an analogy similar to yours, except instead of the nutshell, we have the entire universe, and instead of the nut, we have God.

We must first establish several assumptions:

1.It is unlikely for an entire universe to form via random chance combined with physical laws and gravity, as only quantum fluctuations can create matter out of nowhere natually, and quantum fluctuations are rare and their effects only last for a short time. [1]
2.God can violate physical laws, such as the first law of thermodynamics.

Then, we'll look at the two sides of the argument. It is unlikely that the universe was created by random chance, but it is likely for an intelligent entity to break physical laws and create the universe.


SOURCES
1.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

unbrekable nutshell



creation and destruction is impossible in reality, make an apple nothing



imagination is false



belief=be lie, as i have to imagine it



Leugen9001

Con

unbrekable nutshell

creation and destruction is impossible in reality, make an apple nothing

imagination is false

belief=be lie, as i have to imagine it


I'm not sure what point you're exactly trying to make here, since you did not directly address any of my points. I'll address your arguments individually.


"unbrekable[sic] nutshell"

Well, if a nutshell is unbreakable, then it logically follows that the nut inside it can't be taken out; therefore, it must have a nut inside. Similarly, if it is unlikely for the universe to be created out of nowhere without divine influence, then it logically follows that the universe was most likely created.

"imagination is false"

Pro does not use any evidence to back up this point.

Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

what nut inside it
Leugen9001

Con

Since your question was in regards to whether or not there's a nut in the nutshell, the kind of nut which is in the nutshell is irrelevant.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

maybe there is not a nut inside it
Leugen9001

Con

Leugen9001 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Leugen9001

Con

Pro did not respond to any of my arguments. I have shown that it is likely for there to be a nut inside a nutshell; similarly, it is likely for the universe to have been created by God according to my arguments.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
====================================================================
>Reported vote: The-Voice-of-Truth // Moderator action: Removed<

4 points to Con (S&G, arguments), 1 point to Pro (conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro due to FF by Con, but Arg and S&G to Con because Con had better S&G, and Pro did not refute Con's arguments.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Failure to explain *why* S&G was awarded; this RFD merely stated *that* S&G was better. (2) Not specific enough on arguments. Just saying something like "insufficient refutations" could be said of *any* debate, and provides no real feedback to the debaters.
====================================================================
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
===================================================================
>Reported vote: Atheism_Debater // Moderator action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. RFD = Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited

[*Reason for removal*] A single round forfeit is not a sufficient reason to award all 7 points.
===================================================================
Posted by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
You have to learn to speak "vi_spex" to really know what he's talking about.
Posted by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
The nutshell metaphor is not apt. Experience with nutshells indicates that there is usually a nut inside the shell. There is no comparable experience with the universe that implies the existence of God.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
I don't understand :p
No votes have been placed for this debate.