The Instigator
Thiest_1998
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
WrickItRalph
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

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  
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: 3/14/2019 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 999 times Debate No: 120830
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (37)
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
Thiest_1998

Pro

Because your rebuttal is very similar to my statement in, To me looks like you're repeating me.

You said: 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.

My response: I can tell the difference but you've made the assumption also in this context we're talking about natural law it seems as if you're dodging the question by trying to ridicule my vocabulary, Can you answer the question please.

You said: 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?

My response: Because its a philosophical 'debate' your thoughts aren't feelings, If you use your feelings justify a so called 'facts' then that isn't a fact and personally whenever I catch myself doing that I personally feel that it might be a wake up call to change my views and thoughts ect.
If you can please give an explanation.

You said: 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.

My response:

Just for clarity I'm talking about the God of the Bible (KJV) to be specific I believe I can explain it but furthermore just because you can't explain something doesn't make it a false narrative for example light we all know what it is but cannot give a formal definition of what it is and if you believe that you can please give an explanation.

You said: 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.

My response: You never explained it you only bought it up as a ploy to dodge the question.

There's no need to denigrate my intelligence I thought we were having fun please let's be nicer to each other :)

I look forward to your reply :)
WrickItRalph

Con

I was. I do that sometimes so my answer can be matched to the question.

Well I'm not ridiculing your vocabulary, I'm trying to help you speak coherently. Whether you realize it or not, Your question implies a prescriptive law. When you say "implemented" that necessarily implies that the law is prescriptive. You might be doing this by accident, Because apologists do this a lot and you might be getting your arguments from them. But it's wrong regardless of how you try to spin it. A law is not an edict. It's a description of something we see. The law of gravity is true even if there is no gravity happening. All the law says is that when gravity does happen, This is what it will look like. I will never accept your characterization of laws because it's simply a word trick. Ad hoc or post hoc means that you have something you want to prove, Like the existence of god, And instead of studying from the bottom up, You add all of the evidence into what you want to prove instead of letting the evidence just prove it for you.

The reason I said show me god is because you're asking how he doesn't fit into my model. The fact that you can't show god to me is my reason for leaving it out of the model. It's the same reason I don't add unicorns and harry potter into my model. Would you ask me that same question about unicorns and harry potter? No you wouldn't. I've been giving you explanations, You just don't accept them. Classic presupp tactic.

"Just for clarity I'm talking about the God of the Bible (KJV) to be specific I believe I can explain it but furthermore just because you can't explain something doesn't make it a false narrative for example light we all know what it is but cannot give a formal definition of what it is and if you believe that you can please give an explanation. "

You're still mixing up the words explain and account for. First of all. The bible is not evidence. Second. The god of the bible is the hardest god to argue for, So that just makes thing worse for you. Third. When I say explanatory power, I mean god's ability to explain things in the universe. Fourth. When I say explain. I don't mean it simply accounts for it, I mean that it can describe the method by which god creates the universe and can make predictions. Fifth. I'm not talking about narratives. I'm talking about explanatory power. Sixth. Yes we can formally explain light and that's why science excepts light and not god. Here I'll show you. Light consists of photons and is the fastest moving thing in the universe. I just gave facts about light that explain things about it and make predictions. I can use the statement about it being the fastest moving thing to compare other things two it and I can make the correct prediction that nothing will move faster than it. God has none of these explanatory properties.

"My response: You never explained it you only bought it up as a ploy to dodge the question. "

Yes I did

I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking harmful ways of thinking. You don't offend me, Your miscarriage of knowledge does. It's nothing personal.

Your floor.
Debate Round No. 4
Thiest_1998

Pro

You said: Well I'm not ridiculing your vocabulary, I'm trying to help you speak coherently. Whether you realize it or not, Your question implies a prescriptive law. When you say "implemented" that necessarily implies that the law is prescriptive. You might be doing this by accident, Because apologists do this a lot and you might be getting your arguments from them. But it's wrong regardless of how you try to spin it. A law is not an edict. It's a description of something we see. The law of gravity is true even if there is no gravity happening. All the law says is that when gravity does happen, This is what it will look like. I will never accept your characterization of laws because it's simply a word trick. Ad hoc or post hoc means that you have something you want to prove, Like the existence of god, And instead of studying from the bottom up, You add all of the evidence into what you want to prove instead of letting the evidence just prove it for you.

My response: But as I keep saying the (context) of the argument we were talking about the natural law its just a ploy you're using to avoid the question and I doubt you will answer it which is

Q. "How do you know that the laws weren't implemented and if that the universe was always in that state. "

The word universe is in the question.

By the way I'm not an apologist.

What evidence?

You said: You're still mixing up the words explain and account for. First of all. The bible is not evidence. Second. The god of the bible is the hardest god to argue for, So that just makes thing worse for you. Third. When I say explanatory power, I mean god's ability to explain things in the universe. Fourth. When I say explain. I don't mean it simply accounts for it, I mean that it can describe the method by which god creates the universe and can make predictions. Fifth. I'm not talking about narratives. I'm talking about explanatory power. Sixth. Yes we can formally explain light and that's why science excepts light and not god. Here I'll show you. Light consists of photons and is the fastest moving thing in the universe. I just gave facts about light that explain things about it and make predictions. I can use the statement about it being the fastest moving thing to compare other things two it and I can make the correct prediction that nothing will move faster than it. God has none of these explanatory properties.

My response: I mean we can see light but also light doesn't only consist of just photons it consists of many more things and doesn't fully describe it eg our body is 70% water that doesn't mean we're just water, I'm saying God explains the existence of the universe if you see a house you would think a group of people helped build that so why would you think differently about the universe?

You said Yes I did

My response no you didn't

Never said it was just put it out there in case you wanted to quote scripture as incorrect

Knowing this first, That there shall come in the last days scoffers, Walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, All things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5 For this they WILLING ARE IGNORANT
WrickItRalph

Con

Looks like most your argument is just a sermon. What a waste of words.

I did answer you question. Twice. But I'll spell it out for you since you don't understand my answer.

You ask me:
"How do you know that the laws weren't implemented and if that the universe was always in that state. "

The short answer is that I know because of the impossibility to the contrary. The long answer is that laws are descriptive, Not prescriptive. That means that it is impossible to "implement" them because they're descriptions of various stats of affairs. That was the whole point of my answer. Your question is fallacious because it uses a false equivocation of the word "law" to try and sneak a prescriptive law into, But there are no prescriptive laws.

You are an apologist. You're arguing using apologetics.

God doesn't explain anything. It only accounts for it. There's a difference. Explanations tell you the reasons that something happened. God does not do this. God does not explain why the big bang happened how it did. God doesn't even explain how God works. It's just a wildcard explanation that can be used for anything. How did that tree fall over? God. How did that cloud get there? God. Why did my toe fall off? God. It's vacuous and lazy.

I don't care what scripture says. That's just the opinion of some 2, 600 year old people who were far less educated than you or I. These were people who saw lightning bolts and thought it was a magic person in the sky. Why would I get my knowledge from such an errant source?

good debate
Debate Round No. 5
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
You mean fantasy particles.
Posted by melcharaz 3 years ago
melcharaz
pretty sure you are undermining the point I'm trying to make and dodge it. We talked about particles we weren't aware of earlier if you remember (or scroll down)
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
@melcharaz. Particles are constantly moving in superpositions. They don't need a guiding force.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@melcharaz

"I speak therefore I am. "
That is not proof. Do tell me how that is proof.

"I know exactly what i believe and I know where im going. AND i know why im going there. "
I speak therefore I am is not proof of your existence so if you can't even know that you exist how could you know something higher like if God exists or if you are believing in the right one?
Posted by melcharaz 3 years ago
melcharaz
intresting comments and questions.
@omar I speak therefore I am. His morality is all about self and shows no regard for others, Not to mention it doesn't even help people in the long run. Also, I know exactly what i believe and I know where im going. AND i know why im going there.

@wrickitralph
You assume that there is no force guiding particles. There is no proof that that is no so.
Standard of evidence and probability don't matter in terms of observation

The problem again, As is always, Perspective, You know what you see and have a hard time accepting what you do not see, Neither are more or less extraordinary than the other in terms of all knowing. A dog can be more extraordinary than a God depending on if people have ever seen a dog.

Creation its self is evidence of my claim.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
@melcharaz. Well that's just categorically false. If two claims have no evidence and one is extraordinary, They most definitely do not have the same probability nor do they have the same standards of evidence.

If someone claims. 'I have a dog' that is a mundane claim and I have lots of reason to believe that could be true. The claim has almost no effect on my life at all, So I am justified to accept this claim without any evidence at all unless the person making the claim is notorious for lying about having pets.

If someone claims. "I have a unicorn" that is an extraordinary claim and I have no reasons at all to believe that it is even plausible, Let alone probable. So in this case, I would require proper evidence. The only evidence I would except in this case would be visual proof of the unicorn combined with genetic testing to prove that it's not just a cleverly disguised horse.

Furthermore, Your claim is not only an extraordinary claim. It is the apex of extraordinary claims. You claim there is a being that can not only do literally anything, But this being also cares about petty things like which color clothes we wear and where we stick our genitals. If you think this claim gets any kind of consideration at all without rock solid evidence, Then you're sadly mistaken.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Continuing on from
Do tell me how we do exist if you can. . . If you have a problem with my position.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@melcharaz

Okay then. My claim is that we don't exist and presumably your position is we do exist is as plausible.
Do tell me how we do exist if you can.

"If we have no knowledge to denounce it"
You have dedicated your morality around something you do not even know exists. Do you understand the problem? It like saying people who follow satan are just as plausible with their moral system because we have no way to denounce it. Can you me why it isn't plausible to derive morality from satan?
Posted by melcharaz 3 years ago
melcharaz
doesn't matter how extraordinary a claim is, If we have no knowledge to denounce it, Its just as plausible as a claim that is less so. What we don't know may affect us even more than what we do know.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years 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.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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