It is more likely that no god* exists rather than any form of god existing.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Alright, it’s been a while since I’ve done an atheism debate and I miss it kinda.
God: a perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient being that created the universe.
Please note that neither side has to prove that god is real or not, you just have to make a case that your side is more probable than the other.
For this debate I like to apply tactics of Socrates the Great to confuse those who r influenced blindly by my respected Opponent's Motion.And to display truth to those who like to know it.
God is great and origin of goodness....innocence , love , wisdom , grace , truth is the fingerprints of GOD. GOD is all ...... love...wisdom.....innocence.... grace.... truth...God is creator of everything and creator of u and me , and gives us free will and intelligence which improved with passage of time . everything is caged into nature except us . only we r able to do anything against nature .
Animal eat each other lion eat deer.... eat.... grass....... that's just their nature that is not evil
But when we learn from them and do good things for mankind and some times what we do is bad for everything...... that is not fault of GOD , that is our fault of humans as we enjoy our freedom to fly and to reach the blue sky for goodness and sometimes result r worse or not according to our expectations .... that's okay and the fact is that we r the creator of evil .
but after all we can't see the GOD becoz we r not able see GOD it doesn't mean , GOD is bad who don't reveal his self to us and still see destruction and fight among religions and humans.
GOD never reveal himself to us we find him by ourselves ..... and for that every one choose their own way , no one can say this way is wronge or that is right only the end results tell the truth.
Previous :GOD have complete free will and independent from everything but GOD not participate in this world and ofcourse he don't deserve to do anything in world after GOD create humans , while humans have half free will as they depend on other things and for that humans participate in this world . becoz humans need it and humans r like GODs of this world after Great GOD . Humans r ambitious so we do bad and good to achieve something.
Previous :we r not able to see him and we r in playground of world where we and GOD paly hide and seek . GOD never reveal himself to us we find him by ourselves ..... and for that every one choose their own way , no one can say this way is wronge or that is right only the end results tell the truth.
I remember one line of a atheist scholar : " when good ppl do bad things that is religion "
My opponent has only ...... made a few vague statements ..., my opponents grammar and spelling have been abysmal this whole debate....... reading .... arguments multiple times....... I think falls under the criteria for awarding that point
After Great GOD we r sub-gods (humans) of this world , who learn to be gods from this world , of this world.Evil belongs to us (humans or sub-Gods ) not to Great GOD and the other thing is that whatever (Earth-quakes , deceases, death, pain , .......) happens in this world is not concern of God , its part of this world and that's not bad , we r humans and we learn and tackle it , that's why we r sub-Gods
we and GOD play hide and seek : hide and seek is a game in which one participant ( john) find other hidden participants (friends of John) , game ends only when john find all his friends
Ans in short : every one choose their own wayExplanation : as u say i can't say God of different religions is same God , ofcourse at that spot i say too that : " Religion/s r man-made , religion is not concern of God"our f* forefathers make this shit (religion) , haha so just f* with it don't f* on it. every one choose their own way to find the friend (God).our Great God is free from religion.
Evil belongs to us (humans or sub-Gods ) not to Great GOD and the other thing is that whatever (Earth-quakes , deceases, death, pain , wars.....) happens in this world is not concern of God , its part of this world and that's not bad , we r humans and we learn and tackle it , that's why we r sub-Gods
Why does God openly refuse us when we look for him? An all loving God certainly wouldn't.
becoz we and GOD play hide and seek and its not good to give up , we r humans and we never give up.
And u see humans have dreamt of Utopia , humans learn from this world , and try to be better more and more , I hope one day humans make Utopia into reality. Humans not blame the world or the creator of the world , they just learn and make it better on their own and they can what they want .
That you so much for reading, and vote Pro! ( that = thank )
Moozer325 like to ask :some people die without ever having a relationship with God. he's ( God ) clearly refusing us, why?God creates pain through natural evil, gives people the opportunity to cause others pain, and on top of all that, gives us the ability to feel pain. Why would a loving God do that?
Reason for vote in comments 2,3,4,5 of this debate.
PRO seemingly assumed that utilitarianism (or something similar) is accurate without providing any fundamental evidence except intuitive claims that I would argue we should virtually never rely on for determining the truth of anything. This might come from semi-common presuppositions about ethics or a unique definition that excludes deontology, virtue ethics, other forms of consequentialism and other systems entirely. But this was unfortunately never really clarified. Either way, if we are to accept things like moral desert and free will, it isn't clear why the lovingness of a being must necessarily be inversely correlated with how much suffering they want their creations to endure. Perhaps God views most animals as toys to be played with, and not beings to love, since other animals arguably lack free will or the prerequisite self-awareness, general intelligence, etc. that the vast majority of humans supposedly have. It seems PRO did not properly account for this part of what CON seemed to be implying.
Like PRO, CON either seems to use a very specific definition of morality or has a completely unmentioned argument or assumption about morality. Either way, they consider things like natural disasters and animals eating other animals as things that cannot be evil, seemingly because they lack free will. Why is free will involved in this? Ostensibly because of moral desert, but how it supports moral desert or anything else that might support oughts is never explained. And either way, these implied things are never properly argued for.
I tentatively believe that PRO should be the victor of the argument point because of how many implied things CON relied on and never properly explained. But to me it isn't obvious, I nearly called it a tie since both sides rely so heavily on unjustified premises and/or unspoken definitions.
CON's consistently strange spacing, choice of terms and at times very confusing sentence structures basically guarantee that, if a legibility point should be awarded, it should go to PRO. I decided to award it since this is such an extreme case and I would like to contribute to deterring other people from using such tactics as a strategy to win debates. (Not that I believe CON did it for this purpose.)
If I critisize either side, it is not because I think I could do better, it's just my surface thoughts.
Reason for Vote Part 1
R1 Moozer325
My thoughts on Pro R1
I think Pro brings up fair questions that bother people on the existence of God.
I don't think people are unable to offer excuses or possibilities, but. . . Such offerings work better on people who identify God in certain ways or have faith.
Someone spiritually deaf or blind, could not be convinced by such, I'd think.
And even those who supposedly have the ears and eyes for it, how much do they 'truly see, 'truly hear?
Though perhaps it is enough to know 'something is there, to have a 'direction of what one should value, how one should act.
I'm still an Atheist though.
Anyway, I think Pro's round 1 would be considered decent enough arguments by most people.
Religious people often believe in an afterlife, or a reoccurrence.
Is a human lifespan that long compared to X? I say X as I don't know what an afterlife 'would be.
For reoccurrence, doesn't some version of Hinduism believe in Brahman as a God, something or other about everything being one. And people reincarnating trying to be better people each time, learning lessons, but also there's other people who are also them in a sense also trying. Just the nature of existence to have evil.
. . . Though you define God as
"God: a perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient being that created the universe."
What does omnipotent 'mean?
People often don't mean the ability to make 1+1=3,
One could argue that God is limited by logic, while still being omnipotent.
For the Christian side though, I've always liked Job.
Reminds me of the Parable of the Invisible Gardener.
But such an argument is based on itself, and could be flipped to there being a Gardener, and yet the Atheist insisting every action is a mirage.
'Pro's ideal God, would behave as they want,
Yet my thoughts again go to Job.
'Is one more likely to have a divine visit in a different country?
If you have proof of even one divine visit, wouldn't such prove God?
If one has a more 'Deist view of God, whether a Deist God that 'has appeared or one that hasn't. Wouldn't such Deists be able to see God even in Atheist countries?
Who is to say what a divine visit 'is?
Do we 'know God is passive?
If God has some value or circumstance of the World, some self imposed rule on how they should act, does this mean they are not Omnipotent?
If I make a rule to myself not to stab random strangers in the street, it would not be true that I am incapable of stabbing random strangers in the street.
R1 Con
I thought the Socratic method was open ended questions that force the opponent to defeat themself?
I'd argue Con makes 'statements and assumptions a fair bit here.
I'm also doubtful that we are not caged into nature ourselves.
Some believers in God have nonstandard ideas of Free Will, see Calvinists.
"God doesn't make the world this way. We do.” - Rorsach
Though people disagree on 'whether God 'does or doesn't.
Hands on, people still argue God is Good or Bad,
Hands off, people still argue God is Good or Bad.
My mind returns to the Invisible Gardener,
What do we define as God, and how much can we conclude of objects that we cannot 'see.
Should it have been more likely that no X exists, earlier in history, before we could 'show them through a microscope?
Or because their definition years later would be slightly different?
Sometimes objects, laws, and people are identified peripherally, through logical necessity.
What makes something more or less likely?
(Thoughts here my own, not Cons)
My thoughts on Con R1
Con gives assertions on what God is, and seems to be identifying God as Truth?
Which I suppose is a bit of problem of Pros debate, though they 'did give a definition of God, it might be a bit broad.
Hm, is Con identifying God as a being?
While Con says what something 'is, Con doesn't say why such would exist, or what proof there is of such an existence.
Reason for Vote Part 2
R2 Moozer325
Are humans evil for creating new humans to live?
Or animals that we eat?
What did/does existence require to fulfill God's purpose?
Begging the question on my part, I suppose.
I wonder at how well a person would emphasize without pain?
One sees AI sometimes brutalized in fiction, as a necessity of sentience, but eh.
. . . There is more than physical pain I suppose, emotional pain for instance. . . Hm, if humans removed all pain from all organisms on Earth, would such 'also have been part of Gods plan?
But then, I don't think Pro 'required God to have a plan, just to be
"perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient being that created the universe."
Which doesn't 'require plans really.
Still whether this theoretical God is hands on or not, it's not an either or. Can be a spectrum.
Does God need be responsible for every minutia?
Different Theists have different answers I'd think.
Omniquantism
http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff1400/fc01386.htm
Goes on for a few comics on the subject.
Pro R2 Concluding thoughts
"I acknowledge that the primary burden of proof rests with me. I must have sufficient evidence to prove that it is more likely God does not exist, and Con must either have sufficient evidence to prove that it is more likely that God does exist, or demonstrate that I have not provided enough evidence to support my side." - Pro R1
Hm, leaning towards Pro, but something feels off about debate.
R2 Con
Sub Gods?
Why are we Sub Gods?
I assume because of Con earlier arguments about our 'seemingly greater control other environment than other organisms on Earth.
Con seems to be taking hands off God approach.
And a bit Pantheist God approach?
Or do they maintain God is a person?
Okay, Con suggests that God exists separate of manmade religions,
But why does such prove God needs to exist?
"Con must either have sufficient evidence to prove that it is more likely that God does exist, or demonstrate that I have not provided enough evidence to support my side." - Pro R1
Hm, "or demonstrate that I have not provided enough evidence to support my side." is probably the one I'll try to factor at the end.
Reason for Vote Part 3
R3 Pro
One could argue we have pain and sorrow as training wheels.
Or that feeling happy all the time isn't everything.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/n5TqCuizyJDfAPjkr/the-baby-eating-aliens-1-8
I'm again reminded of Job.
But admit to many such can come off as God works in mysterious ways, and that such an argument can not be satisfying to people.
Hm, 'has Pro proved God cannot exist?
Big part of their argument is identifying God as all loving, and arguing if God loved us they would do more.
One can rebut that God may be all powerful, but what does all powerful 'mean?
1+1=3?
If it means something less, then there can be reasons for our pain, like a parent's action or nonaction towards child in pain, necessary experience or part of existence. Lot of religious people believe in an after,
With how long some people have been dead, has their lives ended 'there? Never learning? Never experiencing? Never being something next or more?
(I'm still a materialist)
'Does Cons counterarguments hold up?
Con is not so much proving God exists to me, so much as arguing against Cons reasons for God not existing.
Well, Pro addressed that in this round, arguing it 'does have something to do with God, depends on Cons next round arguments.
R3 Con
Currently leaning towards Pro,
Socratic method might be a bad method when there are limited rounds in a debate.
It 'also can be flawed when you assume the opponent will give you the answer you want.
Reason for Vote Part 4
R4 Pro
New International Version
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
https://biblehub.com/hebrews/11-6.htm
New International Version
This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
https://biblehub.com/matthew/13-13.htm
Course it seems probable that 'some people would believe if they saw, or understand what they hear.
But maybe they wouldn't see or hear what was 'important.
Perhaps there is something in our uncertainty, yet wanting the right of existence.
"He [God] wants them to learn to walk and must therefore take away His hand; and if only the will to walk is really there He is pleased even with their stumbles. Do not be deceived, Wormwood. Our cause is never more in danger, than when a human, no longer desiring, but intending, to do our Enemy's will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys."
— The Screwtape Letters, letter VIII, C. S. Lewis
Serenity (2005)
"A world without sin."
Do you believe in a God that worked through evolution?
R4 Con
I'd say goes a bit off topic, even if it's positive about humans trying their best and doing right in the world.
Debate Conclusions
Pro has a specific idea of God they argue against, and assume a great amount of freedom by said God.
Con asserts God is a bunch of good stuff, and that humans are responsible for evil.
Pro argues God cannot be separate from human actions.
Pro argues why all the different ideas of religion, why does God not more obviously act and speak.
Con argues we all find God differently, and that they are something to find.
Arguments-wise, I don't think Pro was 'so great,
But they 'seemed more on topic and defining of what they meant by God.
Using You instead of U or Are instead of R,
Helps with legibility, Legibility to Pro.
Legibility 'matters for debates, as it better helps people read and understand your arguments,
So I'm also voting arguments to Pro,
Though 'something feels off about Pros arguments and definitions.
Conduct equal, sources equal.
votes plz