Instigator / Pro
4
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Topic
#566

The existence of God is impossible

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
0
2

After 2 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

Barney
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1810
rating
49
debates
100.0%
won
Description

No information

God might exist. I hope not.

-->
@Type1

Thanks for the debate.

If you'd ever like some help, let me know.

-->
@Type1
@Barney

Good job.

-->
@GeneralGrant

Vote Reported: GeneralGrant // Mod Decision: Removed
Points awarded: Full points to con
RFD: Con had better arguments, besides no one can definitely prove the material existence or non existence of God.
Reason for mod decision: This vote fails to meet the COC standards

-->
@Type1

Thanks. It’ll be removed when I get home. Thanks

-->
@David

GeneralGrant's vote should be removed because he is literally basing his vote on pure bias. If you look at his debate with RM he is basically a blindly adherent theist with no reason to back up his beliefs, so obviously his vote is based on pure stupidity and should not count.

-->
@GeneralGrant

Thanks for voting... However, you should spend a little time reading the site Code of Conduct, the voting standards in particular: https://www.debateart.com/rules

A mod will be deleting your current vote shortly.

Vote Reported: Alec // Mod Decision: Removed
Points awarded: 1 point to con for conduct
RFD

Conduct:
Pro said, "You are literally tying your own noose". I think Pro should have been describing himself when saying this so it would be more accurate.

Reason for mod decision: This vote is not sufficient.

-->
@RationalMadman
@Ramshutu
@Alec

Thanks for voting on this debate, I hope it was an enjoyable read.

Ramshutu,
I did not intend to use semantics nearly as badly as I did (I forgot the argument I had meant to use until R3, and by then it was way too late to introduce), but thank you for reminding me what a bad habit it is. Part of the problem for me is that I've really studied theology (went to a Catholic university), so even within the general Abrahamic God, there's so many different visions of that concept even within any one holy book about him (Genesis for example, has two contradicting creation myths).

RationalMadman,
That link had some really good arguments, and I do wish he had read it to refine and strengthen his case.
When I introduced the simulation argument, I made no specifications on the type of simulation, I had zero thought about aliens (or "cyborg aliens"). I intended it just to show how limited our understanding of the universe is, and how various other possibilities exist and are logically supported. To quote Deadpool (2015, #21): "Elon Musk says we're living inside a hologram, so who really gives a @#$ if I throw a few penguins? I'm a simulated life-form living inside the brains of your simulated life. Think about it." ... Had I intended this to go as semantics as it became, I would have just said God is the FSM, and proceeded to quote The Gospel about the unintelligent design of the universe.

-->
@RationalMadman

What you and many others don't understand, with this debate in particular and many others, is that it is largely philosophical and requires REASON rather than just empirical data. For a "rational" madman you seem to have a bit of trouble understanding this. That being said, it requires one to THINK rather than just fall back on sources, and as it stands, the majority of debaters here spend their time constantly and robotically falling back on sources rather than using their own brains.

-->
@Type1
@tbryson

You should both spend a little time reading the site Code of Conduct, the voting standards in particular: https://www.debateart.com/rules

-->
@tbryson

Vote Reported: tbryson // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, sources, and spelling
RFD: he has no reason to be swayed
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC

RFD 1/3
The only Source that Pro used the entire debate was a link I gave him in the comments to help him, especially as he's ranked so low, in the hopes he'd have a fair chance in the fight. The Source in question was used to explicitly state that he will be completely ignoring the contents of it as he sees that as cheating and implied that any link to what was contained in the given Source was purely accidental. Aside from the stupidity of this (because he used a few lines of logic from the Source and could have help up far, far better had he read the Source and altered the wording, accrediting the Source for inspiration), he essentially never once used a reliable Source FOR HIS ARGUMENTS TO HOLD WEIGHT. Not even once, in elaboration, were Sources used to give weight to cited theories and/or facts. Con used Sources to show that simulated-reality is a well-respected theory amongst NASA puppets and since NASA is well-respected, that's actually better than what Pro did. He also used a Pew-Research link to back up that ~55% (and upwards) believe in God in the world, at present. Pew research is extremely reliable for statistics and estimation, being a world renowned non-partisan think tank dedicated to providing the most solid stats there are. Anyone who doesn't respect Pew Research is a fucking dunce who probably believes the Earth is a Globe and that the NASA link is more reliable *pukes*. Stats don't lie; PhotoShop and Groupthink do. No doubt about it, we are onto real deal justification for the Sources vote going to Con. Heck, it's done, that's enough to justify the Sources-point.

RFD 2/3
Arguments revolved around whether or not God was defined as the Judeo-Christian all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful God or if God was defined simply as that being that created this Universe and even other universes, potentially. I think the only thing I agree with Type1 on is that you can’t have a group of supreme aliens be ‘God’, it’s surely twisting semantics too much to have God be the name of a group of demigods. Con doesn’t really fight Pro on the notion of polytheism though, so it is neither here nor there. Con argues that ‘God’ is flexible enough a word to fit any creator of reality as we know it, at all. I am not just biased because I firmly believe in God and that reality is simulated, which did tickle my pickle in the right ways that Ragnar was supporting simulation-theory, but am open-minded here… The thing is, there was no agreed upon definition of God before the debate. Neither the short-description (on the page of debates) or long-description (seen inside the debate) had a listed definition of God being restricted to the kind that Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in. As there was not specific nature of the God required for Ragnar to agree to when clicking ‘Accept Challenge’, it means that we must hold Type1 as the sneaky one who twisted semantics and not Ragnar who had no reason to assume it was only that God-species being discussed.

RFD 3/3
Type1 keeps trying to prove that Ragnar can’t prove that God exists but this doesn’t mean that God is impossible, just like the entirety of Star Wars, which Pro points out hilariously could all be true in theory, the point is that ‘impossible’ means can’t be true at all. You can say ‘Star Wars is impossible if the Force is not possible’ and try to prove that the Force doesn’t operate in our realm of reality, that’s fine, but you’re saying that something that operates in any imaginable realm (even beyond Reality) that is ‘God’ is IMPOSSIBLE… Ragnar corners Pro into admitting that Pro is actually the one trying to rely on groupthink more so than Ragnar. Even if the most insane version of God imaginable that only one person believes in and the majority disagree with, that God still can be real… Then Ragnar flips it back to sandwich Type1 in a BoP trap that is so RationalMadman-esque whereby he points out that the majority of humans believe in God, so either way Pro has no basis here.

Conduct to Con because Pro encourages Con to hang himself ‘literally’ and uses phrases like ‘extraordinarily infantile intellect’ to describe all who believe in God.

Also, Pro shot himself in the foot by saying definitions are social constructs. This means that ‘God’ can be made far more flexible by Con and justified as challenging the social construct that Pro presents. Con didn’t capitalise on that, but Pro genuinely lost the debate with that comment alone, had Con chosen to capitalise on it.

-->
@Alec

Your vote shouldn't even count as it's just an expression of pure bias. Giving him a conduct point even though he misrepresented my whole argument, you're a dumb ass.

"so start wiping up invisible penguin poop and practice what you preach." ???????

-->
@Alec

Yep, so start wiping up invisible penguin poop and practice what you preach.

-->
@Type1

"Of course of course.". This is a concession.

-->
@Alec

Of course of course...technically there could be an invisible purple penguin tap dancing on your head in a quantum superposition of 11th dimensional space/time. It could be pooping down the side of your face and you wouldn't even know it.

Technically anything is possible.

Elon Musk and Neil DeGrasse Tyson are puppets of NASA, to use them as reliable sources is hilarious.

-->
@PsychometricBrain

They are most powerful when together, as the opposition will likely bring another fallacious element of God to patch the broken logic pointed out by that point.

-->
@RationalMadman

None of these arguments seem to me to be convincing, especially the arguments referring to God's omnipotence. Are you willing to defend one of these (of your choice) in a debate?

-->
@Type1

http://www.humanreligions.info/god_is_impossible.html