The Instigator
ffr123
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
philochristos
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

It is illogical if an atheis can believe in ghost existance but denied god existance

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: 2/27/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 505 times Debate No: 109768
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

ffr123

Pro

God and Ghost basically have the same characteristic, both can't be seen. So if there is an atheist who denied the existence of god but believe that ghost exist...isn't that contradictory?
philochristos

Con

God and Ghost basically have the same characteristic, both can't be seen. So if there is an atheist who denied the existence of god but believe that ghost exist...isn't that contradictory?

No, that is not contradictory. A contradiction is when you both affirm and deny the same proposition at the same time and in the same sense. The claim that "ghosts exist" does not contradict the claim that "God exists."

Now, if an atheist says that whatever can't be seen does not exist, and they also claim that neither God nor ghosts can be seen, then to be consistent, they would have to say that neither God nor ghosts exist. In that case, they would be contradicting themselves because while affirming the existence of ghosts, they are also affirming propositions that logically entail that ghosts do not exist.

But an atheist need not deny God's existence for that reason. And even if they did deny the existence of God for that reason, they could still be consistent in believing in ghosts because maybe they've seen one. Moreover, an atheist need not explicitly deny the existence of God in the first place. Many people consider themselves atheists for lacking a belief in God without affirming that God does not exist.

An atheist could deny the existence because God cannot be seen and for some additional reason. It may be that the combination of the two reasons is what leads them to be atheists, and that neither reason, by itself, is sufficient to explain their atheism. In that case, they could also say that ghosts cannot be seen, but lack that additional reason, and therefore continue to believe that ghosts are real in spite of not being able to see them.

Consider this scenario. A person says that God cannot be seen, and there are no sound philosophical arguments for the existence of God. Therefore, they do not believe God exists. At the same time, the person says that ghosts cannot be seen; however, there are sound philosophical arguments for the existence of ghosts. Therefore, they believe in ghosts. So we can see that the atheist in this case agrees that neither God nor ghosts can be seen, yet they are justified in believing in ghosts but not in God. They are still being consistent.

So there are a variety of ways for an atheist to consistently believe in ghosts.
Debate Round No. 1
ffr123

Pro

"And even if they did deny the existence of God for that reason, they could still be consistent in believing in ghosts because maybe they've seen one"

If an atheist believe in ghost because they claim that they seen one...then why they can't believe god exist when someone claim they seen god?

"At the same time, the person says that ghosts cannot be seen; however, there are sound philosophical arguments for the existence of ghosts. Therefore, they believe in ghosts"

Can you give me one "sound philosophical arguments for the existence of ghosts"?
philochristos

Con

>If an atheist believe in ghost because they claim that they seen one...then why they can't believe god exist when someone claim they seen god?

Maybe because the atheist didn't see one, and they don't believe the person who said they did. Or maybe because while they believe the other person saw SOMETHING, they doubt it was God they saw.

But what do you ask? This debate is about whether it's consistent for a person to believe in ghosts if they are an atheist. I want to hear your arguments.

Can you give me one "sound philosophical arguments for the existence of ghosts"?

Maybe, but this debate isn't about whether there are ghosts or not. It's about whether a person can consistently believe in ghosts while not believing in God. You're suppose to be making arguments for the resolution and refuting my arguments against the resolution. You're just asking questions.
Debate Round No. 2
ffr123

Pro

"Maybe because the atheist didn't see one, and they don't believe the person who said they did. Or maybe because while they believe the other person saw SOMETHING, they doubt it was God they saw."

If the atheis doubt that what they saw was indeed God. Then why they firm to believe that what they saw was indeed ghost. Is it seem consistent to you?

"Maybe, but this debate isn't about whether there are ghosts or not. It's about whether a person can consistently believe in ghosts while not believing in God. You're suppose to be making arguments for the resolution and refuting my arguments against the resolution. You're just asking questions."

Yes this debate is not about whether there are ghost or not. it is about consistency. I am asking you those question because i believe if some atheist provided me with "sound argument of ghost existance" then i can used it as "sound argument of God existance" and then those atheist will reject the very argument that he give me which prove that they being inconsistent.
philochristos

Con

Finally, I think I understand where my opponent is coming from. The argument is essentially that any argument or evidence an atheist might give for believing in ghosts would apply equally to God, so it is inconsistent to believe in one but not the other.

The problem is that Pro did not bother to demonstrate that any argument for ghosts would equally apply to God. And even if he did, he wouldn't have show that it's inconsistent to believe in ghosts without believing in God.

Concerning the first point, I have already offered a scenario in which an atheist could consistently believe in ghosts without believing in God, namely, in a situation where the atheists sees a ghost but does not see God. In that case "seeing" would be the cause of belief in a ghost, but the same seeing could not be applied to God.

But suppose an atheist sees both a ghost and God. Would he be inconsistent if he believed one and not the other. Of course not. Consider people who suffer from psychosis and who frequently see things that aren't there. In addition to their hallucinations, they also see things that ARE there. Somehow or other, many of these people are able to distinguish between what is real and what is not real. For example, if they saw a pink elephant dancing in their living room, and they saw the floor of their living room, they might believe the floor is real but not the elephant. Are they being inconsistent?

No, they are not. The reason is because seeing, alone, isn't what leads to belief or disbelief. One way to make that distinction is by appealing to what other people see. If everybody in the room sees the floor, but only the one person sees the elephant, then it's likely the floor is real but the elephant is not. In the same way, if a group of people saw a ghost, but only one person saw God, it would be safe to say the ghost was real but he vision of God was only in the one person's head.

So an atheist can consistently believe in ghost without believing in God. There are lots of ways that belief in ghosts might arise in an atheist without belief in God going along with it. It is not hard at all to imagine such scenarios.

Here's another. Suppose you're a nurse, and you're helping during a surgery in which a person dies on the operating table. Later on, the person wakes up and claims to have had an out of body experience in which they floated to the top of the building. The person was able to describe some very specific things that were sitting on the roof, like the colour of a shoe and the designs on it. So you go up there to investigate, and you find the shoe just as the person described it. That might be a good reason for you to believe the person on the operating table was a ghost, but that wouldn't be any reason for you to believe in God. So it would be perfectly consistent for you to believe in a ghost but not in God.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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