Instigator / Pro
35
1495
rating
47
debates
48.94%
won
Topic
#658
You cannot prove that God exists or doesn't exist (Atheists or Theists may participate)
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 5 votes and with 35 points ahead, the winner is...
Sparrow
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1455
rating
4
debates
12.5%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
In this debate, the full BoP is on con because they are the one claiming that something does or does not exist and I am merely taking the position of open speculation and skepticism. But since I don't want to make this entirely one sided, I will posit something to take a bit of the BoP off your shoulders .
If a God exists, it must be metaphysical in nature for the following reasons:
A) If a physically embodied God such as an Annunaki or Zeus were to exist as opposed to an entirely metaphysical one, it would be more akin to an alien or some form of trans-dimensional entity than a proper God-being.
B) If we are in a simulation, whatever is controlling it does not count as a God for similar reasons.
C) In order to create the material universe and truly preside above it as it's God, a being would have to be beyond material existence in order to be the thing that existed before the material universe to create it.
These factors significantly reduce the angles from which I can attack your arguments, and I truly believe them to be accurate assessments although I could be wrong.
I'd like to clarify what proof means for me. Proving the non-existance of a metaphysical God is showing how such a God's existance would be illogical. But to do that, I must first see the arguments for the existance of God, and the characteristics of the God. Is he omnipotent? Is he omniscient? Is he omnibenevolent? Is he immortal? Did he create the Universe? "God" is a really general idea, so asking me to disprove the existance of "God" is like asking me to prove that blue tastes sour. To disprove something, I first need to know the arguments for it and understand what I'm trying to disprove in the first place. When you tell me that, I can begin.
Round 2
Well as I already proposed (but I am not making a definitive claim of) for something to truly be a "God" it has to be something which is beyond the physical universe as we know it. I personally have no idea what God would be like if he/she/it was real but I believe the God which is most likely would be mostly similar to the Abrahamic monotheistic one. As for whether God is truly omnipotent or omniscient I would say probably no, at least not entirely. There would probably be some limitations in my view, but these limitations would be set by unknown parameters pertaining to the mechanics of a reality beyond the physical plane. As for an argument as to why a God would exist, the most logical one in my view is this:
Both logically and empirically speaking, we have reason to believe that everything in our reality must have a cause. But when you subtract all of the causes and effects that lead up to what we have now, there is an inescapable paradox of causality. If everything needs a cause, what caused "existence" in and of itself to exist? Well logically we can only conclude that either something came from nothing, that something was always there with no cause or that the first cause and effect were somehow the same thing, both the cause and the effect simultaneously. The first two options are a conundrum, the third can only be true if the first cause/effect was made of something that is real yet not tangible/physical such as information. What this line of thinking ultimately leads to is a singularity of information which contains every possibility simultaneously, and which assembled a tangible and logical reality out of the incoherent singularity of information by self-assembling as some sort of sentient probability algorithm which it was able to achieve because within the static of infinite possibilities cancelling each other out there was an meta-structure equivalent to a "God" which was actually aware of the information matrix which it itself was just another intangible part of.
Forfeited
Round 3
Vote for me, I'm white. (jk)
Forfeited
How about this. If you're so confident that gambling is the proper foundation for knowledge, then debate me about it. Surely if it's the best way you should easily be able to rebut down all of my points in a real debate where you can't simply insult me and neigh say without reasons.
You gambling just means you have a 50/50 chance of ending up where I got on a 100% chance. Every claim is yes or no so it's 50/50. I bet you would like to think that it takes more skill because then it would make your poor excuses for a justification look like more than the frail attempt at knowledge that it is.
Coin flip implies 50/50, really gambling is far more intricate than 'head or tails based on nothing' gambling.
I hope you just said checkmate to yourself, because you just escort yourself back into your solipsism bubble. Philosophy doesn't care about your opinion either, so that makes you even.
btw. Solipsism is a philosophy.
Since you don't care what philosophy says, that means you sunk your own solipsism as well
You make know claims so your words are vacuous.
You laugh to yourself because you prove nothing.
You can't even prove your own position.
Your justifications are merely epistemological coin flips.
xD! I don't give a shit what is universally accepted in philosophy, I will refuse to believe it and therefore not know it!
Checkmate!!!!! LOL!
Knowledge is a form of belief. The very fact that you don't believe it means you don't know it. At best, you're using incoherent language since you can't know something that you don't believe(this is universally accepted in philosophy). At the worst, you're in a state of cognitive dissonance. I'm willing to guess that it's the former.
You tell me the truth is a gamble and then that it's not a gamble. You can't know something 99% because you don't know what that 1% will lead you to. What if it leads you to another 10% more things you didn't know about. That means that you can't know that you're 99% sure. You can't even say you're 10% sure because until you done a complete 100% logical induction of something, then you can't know if it's 100%.
so all you can really say is that you "know to some unknowable degree".
Tell me, what's your justification for your statement that reality isn't real?
I gambled on the truth based on other gambled truths. This truth is less gambled than you think. I am telling you I 100% know. It's because if everything that appears real is real then yeah I 100% know. I don't know it that's actually 'real' though.
But RM. How can you know if you don't think we can know anything?
It is not speculation, I literally know it at this point. I am not sure wtf is happening for him to not be banned yet.
^ this is not a threat with mod action, I don't know why he's not banned yet.
I can't give the evidence in public or to you. It involves PMs and that's not allowed to share. I can give speech pattern and such evidence though but I can't be bothered unless you motivate me.
Not that I need an alt account when I have so much fun with just the one, lol. Alt accounts are vacuous if they're not for play to pay games.
I highly doubt that Sparrow is an alt count for type 1 as a voter has alluded. If so, then type 1 has two perfectly split personalities because people can fake names and info but they can't fake micro cues in their writing. For instance, anybody could spot me on an alt account based on several factors in my grammar that I probably don't even know I'm doing.
I stand corrected. the if statement you made threw me off because presupps use that line and I hastily judged without drawing context.
You are incorrect. I am not the one making the claim, I am the one who is agnostic. Theists claim God exists, atheists claim he does not, I claim that I don't know and therefor believe neither.
Pro starts the debate by immediately shifting the burden of proof in the wrong direction.
Classic apologist tactic.
You're the one making the claim (We cannot prove A or B)
That's a positive claim which holds a burden of proof.
Con has one of two options.
Con can say (We cannot know if A or B can be proven or not)
In which case the BoP falls squarely on Pro.
or Con can say (We can prove A or B)
In which case it's a shared BoP.
The BoP isn't a contingency that can just be thrown around as you sit fit. There are guidelines for it.
What your saying this is going to be a sh*t-show right?
It is possible to prove things by both empirical and rational means and I would even argue that all true facts require both empirical and rational truth to be behind them. That being said, it is equally impossible as far as I can tell to prove God exists or doesn't exist rationally, never mind empirically but I am all ears to anyone who would prove me wrong.
It depends who accepts this debate but since you have accepted this debate and you are an atheist your task will be to prove that Atheism is correct. As an agnostic I do not believe it is truly possible for a human being to prove that a God either does or does not exist.
You have very little to do. The contender cannot possibly prove the existence or non-existence if we don't set parameters that we are not even sure the creator follows or not. It is up to you how difficult you want to make it for the Contender.
I guess making it based on philosophy can make it easier since it is not based on observable evidence instead can be based on who can make the better argument.
Are you debating about the Christian God, or all deities in general?