The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
Peacecreek
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

its possible that god is not possible

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 1 vote the winner is...
vi_spex
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/3/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 345 times Debate No: 81968
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

i can wear a hat, unless i am a bot, so how do you know its possibel that i can wear a hat?
Peacecreek

Con

Any current paradigm not positing a God as necessary will end up with true intrinsic logical contradictions that are systemic and incompatible with contemporary science and philosophy as they attempt to answer the primary questions of life relating to origin, meaning, morality and destiny. Therefore, violating logic with integrity, which is impossible, would by default eliminate the possibility of the impossibility of God. We use logical consistency, imperical adequacy and experiential relevance to make a cumulative case on what is true. An honest implementation of these truth tests against these questions of life bring us at best to a paradox with God but to pure contradiction without one.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

you still dont know if god is possible or not

reality is the flawless equation, and so my sensory experience now is the answer

any question goes to the know position.. for an answer, unless i am searching for a question

asking to ask is a dark path

how is god in any way necessary btw?
Peacecreek

Con

When I make a decision about the possibility or impossibility of God, it seems necessary to implement tests to decide which is more likely, that God exists or that God does not exist. In this particular debate, "it is possible that god is not possible", the possibility that God would not exist is impossible in my estimation because when attempting to answer the most profound and ancient questions of humankind, eliminating God from the answer leaves us with more than a paradox. It leaves us with an impossible contradiction or a philosophy not grounded in reality. For instance, let's think about origin(where we come from). Is it realistic to think that since no physical quantity can describe its own existence and that according to contemporary science, matter is not eternal but rather "caught" within the dimension of time, that it all gave birth to itself? Or does it make more sense(more possible) that whatever/whoever brought time into existence is not subject to time(no internal contradiction) and whatever/whoever brought the physical world into existence is not subject to the constraints of limited physical realities. By the way, when Stephen Hawking made the statement that gravity brought time into existence, he was making a philosophical statement and was well outside of his discipline and was told this by some of the brightest philosophical minds of our day. So, unless your debate topic is a trick, and I don't think that's your intent here, I would like to sincerely respond to your statement that "any question goes to the know position". Here's the thing, knowing is a tricky word because we don't know, for instance, what light really is. The best of the best still are unable to determine and know, beyond a shadow of doubt, what it is. However, science is able to detect, measure and manipulate light. Science will have to take a back seat to owning its origin though. Here's the thing though....it does have an origin. To deny its origin is to deny light or to place the origin of light as light itself is to be comfortable with irrational science and pure contradiction. To summarize, saying the physical brought the physical into existence and relying on pure materialism without positing an Agent not subject to the physical is irrational and will end up in contradiction as it won't relate to reality so this is impossible to me. Likewise, saying something within the dimension of time which is subject to time brought the time dimension into existence is also irrational as time would have to exist first in order for that "something" to create time which is impossible. The only rational solution is to posit an Agent of time not subject to time such as an Agent existing in an eternal state. I'm only using the origin question for now to make the argument that it's not possible that God is not possible. I'm comfortable with this but can also develop the argument with the subjects of meaning, morality and destiny as well. I really enjoy the debate topic you have created here and hope I'm making some sense in the development of my case. This is a very complex topic in my estimation.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

no evidence exist for a god

lies are complicated by seperation and true is simple now as one

matter=space+time

if you take an apple... and cut it into tiny pieces until you cant get them smaller, and you spead this around the globe into the sea, to destroy it, you have destroyed it as much as if you did nothing to it in the first place

to say, some one put time into existence.. its like i say what about the other guy that will take it away next week?

the topic might sound complicated.. but really the answer is as simple as we cant say wheather god is possible or not based on no evidence or knowledge.. it remains a fairy tale, like the other guy taking away time next week
Peacecreek

Con

Peacecreek forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

fat fish swimming
Peacecreek

Con

Peacecreek forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

meeeeeeeh
Peacecreek

Con

Peacecreek forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
vi_spexPeacecreekTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff many times, so conduct to Pro.