The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

God DOES exits, but not in the way you think it does

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/20/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 628 times Debate No: 103615
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Hello my friends! This statement should be a surprise, taking into account that it comes from an agnostic. Do I believe in an anthropomorphic, sentimental being who created us all out of benevolence? No. But things get deeper.

Although I currently have a PhD in Algebraic Topology philosophy always fascinated me as well. Through many years of intense research and thought I found my Holy Grail - positivism. But not in the sense of baroque positivism, oh no, something MUCH MUCH better came to my mind. Firstly, let's make a clarification: classical (baroque) positivism claims that observation CAN be rationally explained, but only by reference to observer - he IS NOT the truth, but a "channel" for it to manifest itself.

My "positivism" is different: the Observer is the Truth, or paraphrased, when I see a flower, it exists, when I turn away, it doesn't. It is important to note that Ego does not exist in this framework. I called the collective of all the components of an observation a Noxion, which is irreducible. Now my argument: suppose that in Noxion, there is a component of some kind of deity; it can be anything, from Zeus, to Flying Spaghetti Monster, it doesn't matter. But its inclusion is necessary for the uniqueness of Noxion. Therefore, we can deduce that EVERY component is absolutely necessary for Noxion. Furthermore, it is important to realise that *every element is equivalent to every other, all hold the same importance.*

I only included the "God" as a central concept because this catches people's attention and makes the discussion less dull. In all truth, "God" isn't really your classical idea of "God", but just another element in the structure of Noxion - small and indistinguishable it may be, but without it, it is impossible for Noxion to be "our own". Therefore, we could say that every element is in some sense "God". The funny thing is, that even in this category, there are "Gods" that are actually labeled "God".

That's pretty much all, I proved the existence of God, ha ha ha. Now wrestle with me, hit me under the belt!


There is a variety of contexts where I can disprove the existence if God, each coming from a different cosmological scenario. If I start with Mainstream Science and then progress towards different concepts of reality then from the source, religion, I can end with how God being contradicts itself.

Now, there is an idea within the scientific community called Intelligent Design. If your concept of God is limited to a Creator then we are not arguing for the other properties of God, such as Benevolence, Actions of God (being sent to the afterlife etc). Afterlife will not be included in the argument against mainstream science and intelligent design. So in this scenario I will argue against there being a Creator.

The intricacies of science suggest to the simple minded that all the calculations of physics and logic were known, thus designed. Is an intelligence the only method to how the calculations could manifest as reality. Has nobody considered an automatic, deterministic way. Even computers work this way. So now I have dismissed Choice in the idea of intelligent design.

Something as deterministic as a physical force can lead to the idea of logical contructs in reality. When something is impossible, it will not happen. If planets can not orbit in a square, they won't. Why is this so intelligent, it's only the impossible not occurring.
Debate Round No. 1


You completely missed my point and context, just as I predicted you would. In fact, most people that first meet positivism act in this way. You cited various examples of FRAMEWORKS within which the absolute is "bent" to the context, which is fine. But it doesn't in the slightest way refer to my thesis. The fact that you are criticising the very structure of my argument is a fallacy: by accepting to be the Contra, I expect you to take the same playground as me - positivism. I know, this statement is a little arrogant, but think about it: I'll give you a chance to argue against my thesis itself. I expect only logical and philosophical arguments, do not broaden your spectrum, because you'll miss your mark, that is my friendly warning.

One little advice: if you want to tear my thesis apart, you won't succeed with an attack from the inside, no my thesis is bulletproof on the exterior. If you truly wish to win and prove me wrong, start from THE INSIDE. I currently have 60 pages of my thesis, and let me tell you, there is A LOT of imperfections. Just to help you, here's just one: "If everything is equally Noxion, then what properties can an Observation have? How can there be an Observation is Noxion itself a prior" IS?"

Cheers. I'll let you try again, and this time, please refer to my actual framework and line of reasoning. It'll be more fun this way.


Illusions are a common occurrence, a straightforward possibility. It may seem to the idealistic observer that there is God, but it would just be an illusion. If they want to label this manifestation as God, then they would not be anyway close to what God is actually meant to be. Please state your preferences for what you mean by God. You have just said God without any definition e.g. creator, benevolent force, Allah..

Such as your comment Zues or flying Spaghetti monster, no actual proposition.

I feel that your debate is actually about idealism, perception, comprehension...

I have challenged you with the theory of illusion.
Debate Round No. 2


I hope that quoting you won't be taken as an offensive move. I just want to make the context clear.

"If they want to label this manifestation as God, then they would not be anyway close to what God is actually meant to be. Please state your preferences for what you mean by God. You have just said God without any definition e.g. creator, benevolent force, Allah.."

You've committed the classical fallacy once again. By dissecting the "what odes it REALLY mean" you just separated an essence of an element of consciousness to a transcendental level, thus making it external to one's Consciousness. That is fallacious in the positivistic context. Once again, Observer IS and MAKES the truth. If you want to argue against that, you are welcome to do so, but I once again warmly suggest you to try attacking my thesis from inside rather than outside. You've done neither so far and only misunderstood everything I said. The fact that I didn't include a DEFINITION should be a clear sign of "philosophical hierarchy" in my framework. Furthermore, to strictly define "God" in from a positivistic perspective is ludicrous,as you would have to possess some external criteria. However, everything that IS exists in the Noxion (or oneself, if you prefer), therefore the criteria is wholly fluid. The only reason that I "isolated" the notion of God in the positivistic perspective is to demonstrate that all, even the highest principles are equally important in that particular context. It seems that you are arguing against a self-made statement, which originates in the misunderstanding of my thesis, my friend.

"Such as your comment Zues or flying Spaghetti monster, no actual proposition."

Again, I included these trivial references for a very specific reason: to demonstrate that the FORM of a God has no meaning, rather the perception of the Observer. To clarify: if you worship a coffee mug dedicate all of you suffering, wishes, desires and struggles to it, then (in positivistic context) this mug IS God. I can't stress this enough: OBSERVER CREATES TRUTH, THEREFORE NO DEFINITION OF ANYTHING IS NEEDED.

"I feel that your debate is actually about idealism, perception, comprehension..."

Yes, and I am very sorry if my title was misleading. I just though that more people will be interested in a debate that has a "flashy title."

"I have challenged you with the theory of illusion."

This argument IS valid in the positivistic context, however it is also easily refutable by inspecting some simple properties of the framework. Let's suppose that everything I feel, see or sense in any way is illusion, i.e. my legs do not really exist, I do not have a loving father and mother, etc. The damming contra-argument is. "What difference does this make?" EVEN IF everything I think I am is a delusion THE "LAWS" OF POSITIVISM STILL APPLY! The observer is still stuck in a cocoon of uncertainty, a pseudo-agnostic bubble, from which he can't escape, in other words THE OBSERVER STILL CAN'T POINT TO THE ULTIMATE TRUTH UNLESS AN OBSERVATION IS CONSIDERED TO BE JUST THAT. Sorry for so much upper case yelling, I just wanted to make my point crystal-clear.


Here is an example that disproves your argument about it being just that just because it is perceived.

Say solipsism is actually the case. Anything "else" that would be perceived would not only just be an illusion, it would be the solipsistic being itself as everything is only their Sense. If they perceived something to be God, really overall it is them, the solipsistic being.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Surgeon 2 years ago
Pro. Are you arguing for some form of Idealism, where reality conforms to consciousness?

To me you are talking passed each other. The debate topic seems to make some assumptions which would be better grounded, if we knew whther your starting position wss Idealism or Realism.
Posted by canis 2 years ago
And you could have said : "god DOES not exist because I am dull and do not want to create one.."
Posted by canis 2 years ago
"I only included the "God" as a central concept because this catches people's attention and makes the discussion less dull. "
Why include any god you created. ?..
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.