The Instigator
Thiest_1998
Pro (for)
The Contender
WrickItRalph
Con (against)

Out of all the information you don't know is it possible for God to exist in that realm

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  
Argument Due
We are waiting for Thiest_1998 to post their argument for round #4. If you are Thiest_1998, login to see your options.
Time Remaining
02days01hour26minutes05seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/14/2019 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 22 hours ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 208 times Debate No: 120830
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (28)
Votes (0)

 

Thiest_1998

Pro

If you think that you have 50% 20% 10% or even 5% of all of the knowledge that an individual can garner, Is it possible for God to exist in the percentage of the information you don't know and if not why?
WrickItRalph

Con

Ah! The classic God of The Gaps argument. I can actually point out some reasons why this isn't true at all

1) Even if there is a gap, The laws of the universe don't change, Therefore nothing can exist in the gap that violates the laws of the universe.

2) One thing that we can't know is if we already know anything. This means the percentage could be 0% and we wouldn't know it.

3) People all know different amounts of knowledge. You can't attribute this argument to anyone's knowledge, Therefore, I can just as easily claim that someone exist who has seen all the gaps and verifies that there is no god and you can't really rebut this because your claim is dependent on what your opponent knows.

The rest of my argument will be probabilistic. So beyond the obvious contentions I just mentioned, All evidence points to there being no god. That means that in the absence of any evidence for god, The only honest default position is that no gods exist.

Your floor.
Debate Round No. 1
Thiest_1998

Pro

Im not trying as much to debate you but to stir up thought with a little bit of debate (I should've stated that in round 1)

1. What implements the laws?

2. But we do have knowledge to a certain extent for example we know that the heart pumps blood out of the left ventricle, That we breathe with our lungs but something in which we don't know is the job of a trillion cells or even the job of a singular cell we don't know if it has one or more than one job.

3. It's more of an a question that everyone can answer individually not as a collective but furthermore in this context I'm interested in 'your knowledge'

Thank you for being such a wonderful opponent this is really fun :)

Oh no no you're too kind giving me the floor here you take it.
WrickItRalph

Con

Well as nice as it is for someone to care about my opinion, My knowledge of things says nothing about what we can or can't know as a collective.

You said that one can't know what all of the cells do in living things, That's not really true. The only thing that you can say is that one cannot know the current state of a given instance of cells at any given time. But it is quite possible to know the functions and makeup of things.

You ask:
"What implements the laws? "

Laws are not things to be implemented, But rather descriptions of states of affairs. They're post hoc, So they don't have to be accounted for.

In summation, I agree that there can be a gap, But I do not agree that god can be in that gap because we can use evidence outside of the gap to know what can or can't occur within the gap. The gap must still follow all of the laws of physics. God does not follow the laws of physics. Therefore, God cannot hide in the gaps.

Your floor.
Debate Round No. 2
Thiest_1998

Pro

You said
"that one can't know what all of the cells do in living things, That's not really true. The only thing that you can say is that one cannot know the current state of a given instance of cells at any given time. But it is quite possible to know the functions and makeup of things. "

My response

Are you repeating me?

You said

Laws are not things to be implemented, But rather descriptions of states of affairs. They're post hoc, So they don't have to be accounted for.

My response

How do you know that the laws weren't implemented and if that the universe was always in that state also what's hoc?

You said

In summation, I agree that there can be a gap, But I do not agree that god can be in that gap because we can use evidence outside of the gap to know what can or can't occur within the gap. The gap must still follow all of the laws of physics. God does not follow the laws of physics. Therefore, God cannot hide in the gaps.

My response

Elaborate on the laws and on how God doesn't fit as well as any evidence.
WrickItRalph

Con

Rapid fire.

"Are you repeating me? "

umm, No.

"How do you know that the laws weren't implemented and if that the universe was always in that state also what's hoc? "

Good question. I can violate a speeding law. I can't violate the law of gravity. Honestly, I suggest you learn to separate these two words, Because you'll just get laughed off the floor every time you make this argument. It's hard to take my opponent seriously if they can't even tell the difference between a natural law and a punitive one.

"Elaborate on the laws and on how God doesn't fit as well as any evidence. "

Sure, Just show me god first and I'll study him and see how he fits in the model. Oh wait, You can't, Because he doesn't exist. Why are you asking me to prove your claims?

God is a vacuous explanation. God has no explanatory power. You can ACCOUNT for the universe with God, But you cannot EXPLAIN it. Guess what else can account for god? Fairies, Warlocks, Realicorns, The flying spaghetti monster. Etc.

Your floor. Please look up the two kinds of laws. I tried to explain them, But you're being obtuse, So you need to get yourself a dictionary and spend a couple of hours figuring it out.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WrickItRalph 1 hour ago
WrickItRalph
The difference is that we have examples of particles and we don't have examples of gods. Therefore, My claim is not as extraordinary as yours.
Posted by melcharaz 1 hour ago
melcharaz
to say that there is a particle or a force that we aren't aware of is to assert that there is something that might be, But yet is not yet discovered, Which can imply a possibility of God, Our own lack of omniscience declares the potential for deity. And what we have observed shows a form of understanding or willful design, Creation is perhaps the best example. Both what we know and what we don't can have an all powerful deity applying a concept, Force or consciousness that we are aware of, Or are not aware of.
Posted by WrickItRalph 22 hours ago
WrickItRalph
the only type of god that is even REMOTELY viable is a deist god. Even then, A deist god cannot stand up to any type of criticism. The only reason that people entertain it at all is because people vacuously assert that it's "in the gap". Honestly, It's kind of silly.
Posted by WrickItRalph 22 hours ago
WrickItRalph
@melcharaz. No. And even I there was, It wouldn't be the Christian god.
Posted by melcharaz 1 day ago
melcharaz
which means. . . . There is a possiblity of God's existence in what we know of.
Posted by WrickItRalph 2 days ago
WrickItRalph
I don't know what you mean by particle we have discovered yet. It's not like there's some hidden material in the gap. All mater in all of history has been made from the same particles. It wouldn't really makes sense to think that there's a mysterious one floating around. Now there could be a smaller division of a particle beyond quarks that we're not aware of, But that's a different matter. If god exists, It won't be in a particle, It will be in outer space. . . . Or I guess the center of the earth, Lol.
Posted by melcharaz 2 days ago
melcharaz
intresting! Ive never seen one.

anyways, We can easily predict gaps based on what we know compared with what we know. It would be impossible to perdict the gap between quantum physics and a certain particle we haven't discovered yet, Other than it can fall into that realm of study. Thats where theories come from, What we know + what we know to = what could be. But we don't use knowledge we don't know of to perdict what we don't know of.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 days ago
WrickItRalph
It's a fairy chess piece.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 days ago
WrickItRalph
You're oversimplifying knowledge. You don't even have to leave basic math to verify that we can predict gaps with the things we know. How do you think we shrank the gap in the first place?
Posted by melcharaz 3 days ago
melcharaz
@ wrickitralph, I see you changed your icon. A T hat?

also, Its foolish to think that the things we know define the things we don't know. How often have theories collapsed after science discovered something new? ALOT.

Scientists and God both affirm we haven't explored all of the depths.

Gods existence isn't contradictory, Unless you have a perceived notion that he is contradictory based on speculation which is belief by using what we know and projecting that attitude and design toward what we think we know. The flesh cannot understand the spirit, But the spirit understands spirit. You, For example, Know what pain you struggle with, Others who have had similar experiences can guess or even adequately describe the pains and struggles, But you deal with them in a more or less severity than other people do, And with a little differentiation of methods to help.

I did not say lack of observation, I said what we don't know can limit our observation of what we do know.

We didn't know God existed until he proclaimed himself and revealed himself to us @omar2345. Its up to us to believe that its true or that its false. Just as we didn't know the sun existed till we saw it. Everything I believe is observed in spiritual and is expressed dimly (Bible says we see through a glass dimly, But once we rise again, We see clearly). For it is the word that determines the physical, Not the physical that determines the word. And we bear record of the word that it is true. For it tells both of the physical (Visible) and spiritual (Invisible)
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.