Instigator / Pro
7
1763
rating
29
debates
98.28%
won
Topic
#3101

THBT: The God of the Christian bible likely does not exist.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Bones
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
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
Contender / Con
4
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Description

INTERPRETED RESOLUTION: The God of the Christian bible does not exist.

DEFINITIONS:

God - The omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being described in the Christian Bible.
Likely - to have a high probability of occurring/being true.
Exist - have objective reality or being

RULES:

1. No Kritiks.
2. No new arguments are to be made in the final round.
3. The Burden of Proof is shared.
4. Definitions are agreed upon and are not to be contested.
5. Rules are agreed upon and are not to be contested.
6. Sources can be hyperlinked or provided in the comment section.
7. A breach in the rules should result in a conduct point deduction for the offender.

-->
@fauxlaw

"You do not own a house. Truth
You do not own your car, outright, if you are even legally allowed to drive. Truth
I believe my reference was that you take advice from your sock puppet, not that you are one. Truth"

How do you know this? For all you know, I could be the son of a Saudi Arabia prince who's swimming in bills and driving golden lambo's. Moreover, you make this claim as a direct insult to my apparent wealth, not to point out a truth about my age.

"My, my, carrying a grudge for over a month?"
No not carrying a grudge over a month. It's just some people's character doesn't change in a month, so my analysis of them a month ago is still relevant today.

"Get over yourself, punk."
This statement would have much more oompf if you had actually won/am in the process of beating me. Neither of which is true. The contrary, actually.

It is not in my nature to gloat when I win. In fact, I am quite a nice and kind mannered person who is humble in victory in defeat [1]. It's just when some dude comes to insult me when I did nothing to provoke them and proceeds to lose (predictable twice), I remind them what a whooping I have them and tell them they ought to learn some respect.

[1] https://www.debateart.com/debates/3071-is-god-real?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=3

-->
@Bones

Coming back?
You do not own a house. Truth
You do not own your car, outright, if you are even legally allowed to drive. Truth
I believe my reference was that you take advice from your sock puppet, not that you are one. Truth.

My, my, carrying a grudge for over a month? Get over yourself, punk.

-->
@fauxlaw

"There is still no mystery to the notion that youth is wasted on the young."
What does that even mean.

"I am still in the top ten in debate, which says something for staying power"
Well I've beaten a top tenner then.

" Hint: I don't gloat when I win."
This isn't gloating. This is coming back to the guy who said I don't own a house, who's car is owned by their bank and who, in the pursuit for intelligent discourse, was accused of miscommunicating with his sock puppet.

-->
@Bones

There is still no mystery to the notion that youth is wasted on the young. I am still in the top ten in debate, which says something for staying power. Let's see if you rank as well when you have engaged as many debates. Hint: I don't gloat when I win. A lesson lost on a child. If you want to wear "sock puppet," be my guest. Tough? You have no idea what that is. You will.

-->
@Bones

Well, he has lost to a 15-year old edgy teenager who has practically no life, so I don't see the point.(obv. extension to joke)

-->
@fauxlaw

How does it feel like to lose to a "sock puppet" [1] who "doesn't own the property they occupy"? [1], and who's "bank owns their car" [1] Must be tough 🤣🤣.

[1] https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6171-breaking-news-i-actually-own-the-us?page=1&post_number=10

-->
@Bones

The claim that “I don’t have the burden of proof” is different than the claim that “atheism is the lack of belief in God, not the disbelief in God.”

I strongly reject the existence of invisible garden fairies because their existence has not been proven. So the claim that theists have the burden of proof is *consistent* with atheism being the active rejection of God’s existence.

-->
@Tejretics

"would you say that someone who places a 50% probability in God existing is an atheist? Because that’s the only relevant question – if someone thinks there’s a 49.9% chance God exist, then they actively reject God’s existence "

I wouldn't say 51 percent requires one to bear the burden, and I wouldn't say that to believe something with more than a 50 percent makes you bear the burden. I make an assumption and say that you don't believe in invisible garden fairies. I'll wager another guess and say that you're disbelief in garden fairies is a tad bit more than 50 percent. Does this mean that you bear the BoP just to justify the non-existence of garden fairies? Obviously, you can atheistic on invisible garden fairies and consider your disbelief to be over 50 percent without needing to justify this position. Personally, I am almost certain that there are no garden fairies, but I will concede that I cannot prove this.

-->
@Bones

Random thought (as an atheist) – it seems to me that distinguishing between a “lack of belief in God” and “active disbelief in God” is a semantic trick to avoid talking about probabilities. Atheists who make this distinction often ask “Do you actively reject the existence of a pink unicorn, or do you simply lack belief in it?”, as if that proves their point – but I do, in fact, actively reject the existence of a pink unicorn. Maybe atheists simply say this to say that religious people have the burden of proof – but that’s a claim independent of “disbelief” and “lack of belief” (i.e., you can actively reject God’s existence on account of it being unproven).

So I’m curious, Pro – would you say that someone who places a 50% probability in God existing is an atheist? Because that’s the only relevant question – if someone thinks there’s a 49.9% chance God exists, then they actively reject God’s existence (in all likelihood), right?

-->
@Benjamin

Thx for the vote. I’m aware that mobile devices cannot handle my quadriple dotting format very well, resulting to a possible difficult read.

Vote conclusion:

Arguments: PRO'S arguments were sufficient to convince one that the Christian (read Biblical) God could not exist, or at least hardly so. CON'S argument, at best, disproved the impossibility of God, but never the improbability.

Sources: Equal

Legibility: Equal

Conduct: PRO, since CON failed to provide the requested positive case as well as multiple times moving the goalpost by re-defining God to have different properties than the classical Christian God

(Not gonna give point though, as this was not directly a conduct violation)

Vote part 3:

PRO exposes CONS hypocrisy in admitting the Bible as inaccurate yet still building his argument on a literal/semantically interpretation of certain passages. He also mentions CON'S lack of positive case.

"realise the difference between proving God is not illogical, and proving that he is objectively real."

PRO goes on to rebuke CON'S arguments one after one, and I am convinced by most of these rebuttals. I laugh when I see the extremely thin text his arguments include. The only rebuttal of CON I didn't agree with was the problem of evil. PRO has no authority to claim what God's "love" means, especially after debunking the Bible's accuracy and it being written by God. Therefore, he does not prove that unnecesary suffering existing contradicts God being the creator.

"In stating "God, being omnipotent", you are making the assumption that God exists."

Yes, the floor is made of floor. But this assumption is a valid one to make against PRO'S arguments which also assumes qualities of God. On that note, PRO fails to disqualify CON'S rebuttal against the omnipotence paradox.

Vote part 2:

I am convinced that though the BoP lies on theists initially, the debate BoP falls on mainly PRO.

CON does not rebutt the B-theory of time. He instead goes into the Hebrew details and tries to claim the Biblical God only created the Earth, not the universe. Waiting to see if PRO will bring up passages of God creating everything there is.

CON correctly emphasises God not having any handicap such as not existing, due to his properties. He does however not defend or use the ontological argument.

CON continues to build his argument on a non-biblical version of God, one that possibly is only one of many and only created Earth. He also asserts humans become gods and many other strange theories. I strongly condemn this tactics since basically every Christian ever would disagree with CON, making his view non-representative of "the CHRISTIAN God". Likewise, I condemn CONs attempt at using Darwin to justify animal suffering.

CON correctly rebuts PRO'S "omnipotence paradox" by refering to free will as a way God COULD do something he doesn't want to do, but without needing to do it.

CON admits the Bible to not be infallible, and proposes other scriptures be from God, or the Bible not from God, thus putting further distance between his view of God and the regular Christian.

Honestly, at this point the God CON defends and the Christian God aren't exactly the same. For this reason, CON is in danger of conceding without knowing it.

However, CON rebuts the problem of evil but rejecting the assumption that "only good could exist in a world God created".

Sorry for my short vote. I am on holiday, and though my phone allows for me to easily READ the entire debate, writing a lengthy vote is hard.

Vote part 1:

I am convinced by PRO that his framework and definitions are correct. Meaning I agree theists have the BoP. However, the BoP is still shared in the debate.

PRO'S anti-kalam argument was convincing in showing that A-time is false, but didn't quite manage to prove the universe is likely uncaused. That is because he provides no absolute foundation for there being no logical laws or time (quantified progression) outside of the universe.

PRO'S anti-ontological argument fully convinces me that the ontological argument is absurd, since he shows that one can easily prove a non-existing God with said arguments logic, which is absurd. Really put a smile on my face too.

PRO'S anti-fine-tuning argument fails to convince me, as it necessarily assumes God came into being. No evidence was provided to support that assumption.

Animal suffering was proven by PRO to necessarily be caused by God if he created earth, and he uses this modified problem of evil to challenge the existence of a loving God like the one Christianity teaches.

PRO'S omnipotence paradox seems to assume that if God didn't do something he didn't want to do, it was because he couldn't do something he didn't do. In other words, he ignores the Christian doctrine of free will as a property of God and later humans. This argument fails to convince anyone with knowledge of the topic "Christian God", me included.

Bible inaccuracies is brought up by PRO, to show what exactly? Even if the Bible was written by humans, that does not help PRO'S case regarding God's existence.

-->
@Bones

I ought to manage.

-->
@Benjamin

Interested in voting? I am aware that you are an agnostic who is not as convicted of their view on religion. Perhaps your clean canvas can give an informed vote? I know this is a long one, so no worries if you can't.

-->
@fauxlaw

I refer you to rule 2

-->
@Bones

I refer you to your definition of "likely"

-->
@fauxlaw

Look, my friend. Stop airing saying that I am dirty laundry in public. Surely you portraying me in a way that makes me look incorrect would have an influence on voters. How about you stop your blatant lying? Tell me where the words "probability" and "likelihood" come up between I.a to I.d. The only thing I see is you rebutting my generic defining of the BoP. I hope you understand there is a difference between establishing who bears the BoP, and what the resolution of the debate is. NOWHERE in your first 3 arguments do you make the case that my arguments are irrelevant and that they only affirm certainly instead not likelihood. This is a completely NEW case that you have made.

-->
@Bones

Look, my friend. Stop airing your dirty laundry in public. It is an influence on voters, as Ragnar said in his #21. STOP IT. Use PM. I will note for you, since it is already noted in my R1 and R4, that you:
1. Had ample opportunity [10 days] to change your resolution, before I accepted the debate. You chose to leave it as is.
2. My R4, referring to my R1, paragraph I, including all sub-paragraphs I.a thru I.d, that you had ample time to defend your Resolution, and chose to ignore it. R1 was not my last round. My R4 merely repeats. Learn the distinction between argument and rebuttal. I've explained it in R4, as well.

-->
@fauxlaw

“ VII Defense: Pro’s failure of a proper Resolution”

Withdrawing rebuttals until the last round. Seriously?

-->
@fauxlaw

“The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.” I rebutted in R1, IV, that, no, the most marvelous creation is man. That is the last creation of all, saving the best for last on “day” 6. That new species have evolved since then is just evidence that creation continues by that mode, events which occurred after God rested on the 7th “day,” and did not retire as some allege. But all that is secondary to the main point: The creation of the world was accomplished on “day” 3, just another preparatory “day,” each day building toward the ultimate creation: us”

Again! Ignorance of my new (3 round old) syllogism! I literally set the new p1 as “the most marvellous creation is man” in my second argument!

-->
@Bones

See comment #17.

It's not that there can be zero discussion, just that debaters themselves should exercise some restraint to not unduly influence voters.

-->
@Barney

Fair enough, but then it follows that the content of the debate cannot be discussed in the comment section, which leaves the question, what is the point of the comment section?

-->
@Bones

Do you disagree with the notion that repetition at the very least increases rote learning?

-->
@Barney

It was taken directly out of the debate round, word for word, so any potential voters there are would have read the same phrase. Obviously, this comment wouldn't bias the voters, at least not any more than them reading the same phrase in the debate.

-->
@fauxlaw
@Bones

While there's no hard rule against discussing the debate in the comment section, as David points out, such can still cross the line into poor conduct.

IMO, comment #13 clearly belonged in the argument rounds, as opposed to the comment section.

-->
@fauxlaw

Strike 1: Undefeatable simply offered a suggestion for me to clarify my argument. Nothing in his comment enhances or improves my contention.

Strike 2: I was not offering suggestions of interpretation, I simply quoted what I stated in the debate and commented that I was unaware how to further simply my argument.

Strike 3: Even if I was getting "assistance" from Undefeatable,

"There is nothing in the COC that says members can’t consult other members in debate arguments"
-David
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2992-flat-earth-is-physically-viable-plausible-if-space-agencies-are-lying-especially-nasa-and-roscosmos?open_tab=comments&comments_page=2&comment_number=18

So in the case that my argument was enhanced by Undefeatable's comment (it wasn't), that still is not an issue. Honestly, what is the point of a comment section if people cannot comment about the debate?

-->
@Barney
@Bones

And I think your offering suggestions of interpretation of argument to a potential voter ought not be done during debate, either.

-->
@Barney
@Undefeatable

I think you ought to stop offering suggestions to anyone in current debate.

-->
@Undefeatable

I mean I'm not too sure how I can simplify it. P1, the most marvellous creation is man, is pretty digestible, as it was a statement that my opponent made leaving no room for digestion. P2, doing X when handicapped is more marvellous than doing it not handicapped is also very simple (who would reasonably say running 100 meters is easier with 1 leg than with 2?). Therefore it follows that if a non-existent God is more marvellous than an existent God, the Christian God is not real, as it alleges to both exist and be the most marvellous. I do not see any possibility that I am over complicating things.

-->
@Bones

I think your “non existent god” argument may be too confusing for faux law causing you two to speak over each other’s heads. Simpler wording might help a little bit XD

-->
@Bones

I prefer to not comment during debate. Read again. Stop skimming. You have less than VII days. And, I have another round of rebuttal remaining, yeah?

-->
@fauxlaw

Is there a reason why you ignored the revised anti-ontological syllogism?

-->
@Bones

The rule, “no new argument in the last round” is a different statement than “no argument in the last round,” whether one includes rebuttal, or not. I’ll get to rebuttal later. Suppose our debate is: “Resolved: sod is not a better way to have a lawn in a new area of yard than planting seeds.” If you are instigator and Pro, I, as Con, having the last frame of the round, should not present a new argument: planting sod will provide instant lawn. That gives you no opportunity to reply by rebuttal. But if I have offered that argument in an earlier round, I am open to defending the argument in my last frame, such as by saying, “In five years, what’s the difference? You have the desired lawn.” having already given you opportunity to rebut it.

To answer your question, I agree with no new argument, as the rule you defined in Description actually says. I have no problem repeating an argument made in a previous round in the last round, but it should not have new evidence provided for it. I consider that defense, rather than calling it argument.

Relative to rebuttal, rebuttal is not really argument. Rebuttal attacks an opponent’s argument from a perspective of relevance, assumption, and impact of an opponent’s argument, even if that rebuttal is given in the final frame of the last round. You are making a case against the opponent, not bolstering your own case.

Therefore, for clarification, when I forbid new argument in the last round, I also stipulate that rebuttal, defense, and conclusion are allowed in the last round for both parties.

-->
@fauxlaw

What do you make of the rule "no arguments in the last round"? The point of the rule is to allow both of us a chance to reply to everything that is said, so would you count rebuttals as a sort of "argument". After all, it would be hardly fair if you came through in the last round and swooped all my arguments off the floor without giving me a chance to reply. Just wanted to clarify before the last round comes.

-->
@Undefeatable

Thanks for the praise. I'll be interested to see how this one plays out.

Notice: somehow, I managed to omit the referenced source for the definition of. "[The burden of the proof] lies upon him who affirms not he who denies" that is in my R1, I.c paragraph. The source is. https://dictionary.thelaw.com/ei-incumbit-probatio-qui-dicit-non-qui-negat/

-->
@Bones

oh, impressive. I've never seen an ontological argument like that. There was something off to me about the idea of the inherent "Creator behind the scenes". I agree that the Big Bang seems even more miraculous than an omnipotent god, because there was no "infinitely powerful creator", and therefore even more "all powerful" in my opinion. Let's see how Fauxlaw responds.

-->
@fauxlaw

References

[1] Craig, William Lane, editor. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. pp. 183-184

[2] ‘Arrow of Time’. Wikipedia, 2 Feb. 2021. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time#Thermodynamic_arrow_of_time

[3] Garson, James. ‘Modal Logic’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Summer 2021, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2021. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/

[4] Maudlin, Tim. ‘XIV-Remarks on the Passing of Time’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, vol. 102, no. 3, Apr. 2002

[5] ‘What Is a Block Universe?’ Plus.Maths.Org, 30 Sept. 2016,
https://plus.maths.org/content/what-block-time#:~:text=When%20Einstein%20unified%20space%20and,way%20to%20picture%20our%20Universe.&text=A%20block%20universe%20is%20a,are%20there%20in%20that%20block.%22

[6] ‘Relativity of Simultaneity’. Wikipedia, 8 June 2021. Wikipedia,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

[7] ‘Relativity of Simultaneity’. Wikipedia, 8 June 2021. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity#:~:text=Einstein%20imagined%20a%20stationary%20observer,to%20strike%20at%20different%20times

[8] Friederich, Simon, and Peter W. Evans. ‘Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Summer 2019, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2019. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-retrocausality/

[9]Physicists Provide Support for Retrocausal Quantum Theory, in Which the Future Influences the Past.
https://phys.org/news/2017-07-physicists-retrocausal-quantum-theory-future.html

[10] Faye, Jan. ‘Backward Causation’. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Spring 2021, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2021. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-backwards/#His

[11] ‘Bell Test’. Wikipedia, 6 May 2021.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test

[12] ‘Occam’s Razor | Origin, Examples, & Facts’. Encyclopedia Britannica,
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Occams-razor

[13] ‘Theism vs. Naturalism’. Https://Www.Apa.Org,https://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/05/god#:~:text=While%20naturalistic%20psychologists%20deny%20the,two%20viewpoints%20incompatible%2C%20says%20Slife.

[14] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsDl-EMomqM&t=550s

-->
@Undefeatable

I know this is a long one, but perhaps you would like to vote if interested? It'll give you some good, unique atheist arguments.

-->
@Tradesecret
@Benjamin

Perhaps you guys would be interested?

-->
@David
@MisterChris
@Fruit_Inspector

I'd love to play devil's advocate (perhaps, pun intended), but this debate would likely be near impossible for me. Perhaps you guys would like a chance first.