Instigator / Pro
27
1575
rating
5
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#756

There is no god

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
6
Better sources
10
10
Better legibility
5
5
Better conduct
3
4

After 5 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

vsp2019
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Twelve hours
Max argument characters
4,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
25
1574
rating
10
debates
80.0%
won
Description

We understand how the big bang works. We know that space and time came to be at the beginning of the Universe. Therefore, If there is a god, Then that god did not create the universe because it did not have time to create the universe. We know how planets are formed from stars exploding into supernovae, We understand how light is created from the fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium atoms and how these sustain life on Earth(Photosynthesis etc. . . ). Every explanation is completely natural.

There have been plenty of cases(Flat Earth, Creationism, . . . ) where a religious explanation had to be let go for a better scientific one. Yet there has not been a single event in history where we had to let go of a scientific explanation for a better religious explanation.
God has always been used to fill the knowledge gap whenever we did not know something about the universe. "What created the Earth? We don't know therefore God did it" "Oh a supernova created the planets. Well, What created the stars then. We don't know therefore god. Oh the big bang. Well what created the big bang? Dunno so it must be god". Every time a secret of the universe has been uncovered, The answer has never been "God did it" We came to be through the process of evolution, Consciousness/mind is a product of the brain, When we die, Our body decays and we cease to be. No god is required at any step.

This thus leads to two possibilities: Either there is no god or there is a god but that god is useless, It does nothing. At most it might had a part in the starting process of the universe but then did nothing since. It has been so inactive that there is no noticeable difference between that god and a god that does not exist.

So out of these possibilities, The simplest explanation is that there is no god.

-->
@PsychometricBrain

The vote was not moderated. The handle sign was ticked after the period closed. I am aware of the dubiousness of the vote, and it should not happen again.

-->
@David
@bsh1

I noticed it as well but didn't feel like stirring up shit over something I could well be wrong about. However, I reported Raaron's vote well before the debate ended (at least 16 hours, I believe) and there is no comment from a mod saying that the vote was found sufficient although it has the "reports have been handled" tick. I would appreciate you guys checking that vote again.

-->
@Barney

I'm glad you feel the same way Ragnar.

-->
@David
@bsh1

I know it's too late now, but I believe raaron's vote falls well short of the voting standards. It looks to me like a profile potentially made just to cast a vote on this debate.

-->
@bsh1

I'm new here, so I don't really know the rules, so thank you for telling me.

-->
@b9_ntt

I know you stand by your vote and that's good for you. I'm glad you feel that way. Based on that last comment of yours, I doubt you yourself know any of these things. Have a good day :)

-->
@vsp2019

You did more than to criticize bad arguments. Criticizing your opponent's language is fair game; imputing a dishonorable motive to it is not. Imputing a motive is not a fact. You misunderstood the Kalam argument more than CON, and he called you on it. You said "Fallacy of composition. Just because everything in the Universe has a cause, It does not mean that the Universe also must have a cause.” The argument was that the universe has a cause because it began to exist. You also accused CON of an "appeal to popularity" when he was simply giving reasons why your statement that god would be useless was incorrect. There is much more that influenced my vote, along those same lines. I stand by my vote.

-->
@b9_ntt

Okay, so? That is not against the rules to criticise bad arguments. I provided evidence when saying my opponent used complicated language to sound smart and clarified what they said for the audience. My opponent misunderstood the first premise of their own argument, which is why i said that they don't understand said premise. You may think it's disrespectful but those are facts. And there is nothing wrong with stating facts and I should not have been penalised for doing so. As they often say "facts don't care about your feelings". Still, its your right to give a bad vote and I respect that. I just think that you misrepresented me with what you said in your vote since I made no ad hominem fallacies and its not deserving of a penalty to get heated. Anyway you made your vote already and I dont have to like it. Have a good day buddy

-->
@vsp2019

Maybe I should have said that you were disrespectful to your opponent then. You used sarcasm several times. You also accused CON of using complicated language in order to sound smart. How could you know that? Then, the final insult: "You don't understand the premises of your own argument. I cannot educate you on theology. Go do your research. I don't have enough characters left to explain such entry level philosophy. It would take me 400 more characters to explain the Kalam to you. I have other arguments to respond to." Definitely disrespectful.

-->
@b9_ntt

I don't think you know what an ad hominem fallacy is.
An ad hom happens when I don't refute their argument because of a third unrelated characteristic. An eg would be saying something along the lines of: "You are wrong because you suck". Just being critical of someone being dishonest is not an ad hom

-->
@Club

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Club // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments

>Reason for Decision: Con failed to state many arguments that could've possible helped him.

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently justify the argument points they award. To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. The voter completes none of these steps, when, in fact, they needed to complete each of them. The voter can cast a sufficient vote by completing each of these three steps. The voter can access site voting policy here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************

-->
@Club

Which arguments were you hoping for?

Holy @&>/, an amature debate on this topic which entertained me.

I'll vote when on a proper terminal later. But credit to both for the back and forth on fallacies, use of sources (I disagree with posting any in the comments, but if doing so I suggest giving a link to the comment # containing them), and general consistency.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

I'd appreciate a vote from you since your DDO record is impressive and you seem interested in this topic

-->
@Chitty-Chitty

A voting competition is about to start in the Forum. Sign up for that and wait till tomorrow until you recast your vote to gain bonus points in the event ;)

-->
@TheRealNihilist

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: omar2345 // Mod action: Not Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments

>Reason for Decision: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
*******************************************************************

-->
@TheRealNihilist

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: omar2345 // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments

>Reason for Decision: Con failed to state something that does not abide by physical laws which could have improved his case by providing an explanation of how nothing can come from nothing but that detail was not given. Even though the charcter limit was at 4k. Con only used 1942 characters in Round 1 which was more than enough to provide an explanation for his point of view. There was an instance where Con did state that the physical laws can be broken but did not say how this can mean God. Sure this debate could have had more characters but Con did accept the debate I am sure knowing full well the 4k character limit. Pro was not as Con was saying his conduct was which is why it is at a tie.
Everything else is also a tie.

>Reason for Mod Action: This vote does not appear to weigh any counterarguments from Pro. In order to vote for Pro, the voter must also assess Pro's points, and cannot focus exclusively on Con. This relates to the need to survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in a debate. Pro can cast a sufficient vote by including an analysis of Pro's main points, and then weighing those points against Con's.
************************************************************************

-->
@bsh1

Understood. My apologies, as I am new to this site.

-->
@Chitty-Chitty

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Chitty-Chitty // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con for arguments and sources

>Reason for Decision: As a believer in God, I argue for Con. I agree that God is not useless, and I can bear witness myself if necessary, because I've been believing for only eight months, and already I can feel the difference that He makes in my life.

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter must base their decision on what happened in the debate, and not based on their own personal beliefs about the topic being debated. The voter must justify all points awarded. Site voting policy can be found here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************

-->
@Chitty-Chitty

Omar treats everyone who disagrees with him like that, I simply ignore him

-->
@Chitty-Chitty

I challenged you. Accept it and lets get to debating

-->
@vsp2019

Absolutely.

-->
@Chitty-Chitty

Would you like to debate me on the existence of god?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Perhaps, instead of questioning my sanity, we can move on beyond that. I can see that you are strongly an atheist, and I strongly believe in God. Now, to move onto the scientific part:

The room I entered was a small one, perhaps 10 feet wide and 12-15 feet long, with a ceiling 6-7 feet tall. (Apologies if you use the metric system.) It was placed to the left side of the hall, which was around 500 feet wide, 1000 feet long, and maybe 500 feet high. The room was filled with normal tea-candles, around 30-50 of them, all lit. As the door was open, I will argue that air pressure would not have changed in any way, shape, or form, as air would have cycled through comfortably. The heating system was not on, as it was a decently warm day, with no need for A/C either.

If I recall correctly, common sense and knowledge proclaims that fire produces smoke, which can reduce oxygen intake, which can potentially cause hallucinations. From smoke comes carbon monoxide. But, as I said before, the room was open, so there was no way for the smoke to collect in such a way that I would have hallucinated from lack of oxygen, as it was not a visible thing, but a physical feeling.

For an explanation of air pressure on the body: https://www.acsedu.com/info/natural-health/physical/altitude-sickness.aspx

The only medication I take is Vyvanse, 30 mg of it, which CAN cause psychosis, but describes the only hallucinations felt as "seeing or hearing things that are not real. And this side effect is rare, very rare.

Source: https://www.rxlist.com/vyvanse-side-effects-drug-center.htm#consumer

On another note, I think believing is fabulous. You know why? Because I want to be a better person, a good one, and I'm doing my best to be. Conceivably, the belief in and love for God inspires people to be better.

-->
@Chitty-Chitty

"I can bear witness myself if necessary, because I've been believing for only eight months, and already I can feel the difference that He makes in my life."
You have completely lost it. I hope you get the help you deserve.

-->
@Chitty-Chitty

"There is really no explanation but the Holy Spirit."
You are delusional if that is your explanation. No reasonable person who knows what your problem is won't conclude that about apart from Theologians.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Buddy, I have no history of hallucinations, delusions, drug use, or anything that could have given me such a reaction. I don't have any of that now. There is really no explanation but the Holy Spirit.

-->
@PsychometricBrain

I don't see how you actually addressed that. Nowhere did you address the glaring problem that is physical laws but you did attempt it by saying it can be broken. I doubt you have an argument that does address that so if you actually had a problem with it do report me if you want because you did not sufficiently address that problem.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

"This is incorrect as I clearly wrote that this uncaused cause is what we call God: "This cause of the universe is what we call God (from Aquinas’ Summa Theologica)." Pro is correct that this does not lead to the conclusion that any specific God exists, however it supports Aristotle’s Prime Mover/Aquinas’ uncaused cause.", "It is an argument for Aquinas’ uncaused cause (which he wrote is what he understands to be God in the Summa Theologica), which is timeless by definition as there was no time before the universe (and with it spacetime) existed."

-->
@PsychometricBrain

"I showed that this can mean PM and that Aquinas argued that PM = God"
Where?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

"There was an instance where Con did state that the physical laws can be broken but did not say how this can mean God." I showed that this can mean PM and that Aquinas argued that PM = God

-->
@PsychometricBrain

What in the debate that you had to say about physical laws apart from it being broken?
Where did I say "no example"?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

What do you mean by "no example"? Most of my arguments were centred around Aristotle's Prime Mover, isn't that an example?

-->
@Chitty-Chitty

You seem interested in this topic, feel free to leave a vote.

-->
@Chitty-Chitty

"There was no explanation but the Holy Spirit."
Delusion. Thank me later.

I'll give you my personal experience with God and His Holy Spirit:

I was in a Catholic church/school for a memorial for an aunt I'd never met. Off to the left side of the hall where they did Mass, there was a small, intimate room dedicated to the Virgin Mary. There was a small, blue-paned window, a statue of Mary, a red-velvet kneeling bench, and a bunch of lit candles.

As soon as I stepped over the threshold, my body immediately felt heavy, like there was not just one soul in it, but two. The feeling almost forced me to my knees, like it had a strength of its own, like it was a spirit. I looked over at the prayer bench, and I felt immediately drawn to it. It was compelling to the point of draining my strength. I turned away and walked quickly out of the room. But the feeling stayed, until I was on the other side of the hall, staring at stained-glass windows. It wasn't quick to leave either, and my knees shook.

Here's the kicker: other members of my family have experienced it. And there was really no explanation. The air wasn't any different, I was completely sober, and I'm the opposite of claustrophobic- I thrive in enclosed spaces. There was no explanation but the Holy Spirit.

-->
@PsychometricBrain

King Strawmanner in the house lol. Keep living in your delusion, buddy. I explained my position and refuted your arguments. You've only done strawmans this whole time and you don't even understand the argument you bring forward. I explained to you how the Kalam works and you don't even understand the first premise. As I said, I can't educate you on it. Do your own research

-->
@vsp2019

None of your arguments provided any support for your BoP that an omnipotent God does not exist, my Kalam supports the uncaused cause conception of God. Good luck in your future debates.

-->
@PsychometricBrain

I said nothing that goes against the rules. Next time learn your own arguments better and avoid strawmanning the opposing side

-->
@vsp2019

Thank you for the debate, try not to get personal in debates though, it undermines your arguments and likely makes you lose out on conduct points.

Sources - round 4:
[1]: https://phys.org/news/2010-03-tiny-instant-physicists-broken-law.html
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

-->
@PsychometricBrain

All kinds of things are possible. It is possible that there is a flying spaghetti monster that lives millions of light years away from Earth. It is possible that fairies exist in a galaxy far, far away. Just because I said that it is possible, it does not mean that it is the case.
This is how I define a strong atheist = Someone who believes that there is no god.
And I am challenging people here to change my mind by providing evidence for why they believe in a god/gods.

If you want to call me agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist or whatever, then feel free. I find arguing labels to be boring.
I find many flaws in the agnostic atheist label hence why I don't use it. And it is not specific enough to describe my position. Agnostic atheist means I don't know and I don't believe. My position is that I strongly believe in the non existence of a god.

Here is a blog post by someone else on the issue with that agnostic atheist label.
https://greatdebatecommunity.com/2019/02/24/the-logical-ambiguity-of-agnostic-atheist/

In the end, I genuinely dont care about the label argument. Call me what you want, just provide argument for your position so we can argue.

I hope a someone accepts this. Pro's argument is easily debunkable.