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
Better arguments
15
0
Better sources
10
0
Better legibility
5
0
Better conduct
5
0

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

-->
@RationalMadman

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.

-->
@RationalMadman

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.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

Coin flip implies 50/50, really gambling is far more intricate than 'head or tails based on nothing' gambling.

-->
@RationalMadman

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.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

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!

-->
@RationalMadman

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?

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

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.

-->
@RationalMadman

But RM. How can you know if you don't think we can know anything?

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

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.

-->
@Sparrow

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.

-->
@Sparrow

I stand corrected. the if statement you made threw me off because presupps use that line and I hastily judged without drawing context.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

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.

-->
@Sparrow

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.

-->
@Sparrow

What your saying this is going to be a sh*t-show right?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

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.

-->
@BigBoonj

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.

-->
@Sparrow

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.

-->
@Sparrow

Are you debating about the Christian God, or all deities in general?