Dre vs. Naci: Does God Exist?

[Dre89]

Me and Naci have decided to set a precedent and initiate a 1v1 debate. To the relief of many people, I will be actually be arguing that God does not exist (so it technically counts as a devil's advocate argument too), and Naci will be arguing that He does.

The format won't be too complicated, we're just going to debate until we feel we have exhausted our arguments. Obviously, no one else should be posting in here.

I'm going to see if I can get some judges, but if not it doesn't really matter. This thread can just be considered a draft that can be tweaked for later 1v1 threads, what's important is that we get somehing happening.

Note: Naci is having issues with his computer at the moment, so he may have to wait a day or two before he can post.

If you guys want to discuss this debate, do it in the social thread, not here. I guess the only other people who should post here are the judges once we've finished.

My argument will be divided into three parts-

1. God is not necessary
2. The original being cannot be perfect.
3. The existence of gratuitous evil renders the existence of a personal God unlikely.



1. God is not necessary

The main philosophical arguments for God seek to prove that God's existence is necessary to actuate the universe. To sum it up, the claim is that all beings are contingent, in that they necessitate prior truths, they are actuated into existence by a prior being. On these grounds, the theists concludes that there must be a self-necessary being that necessitates no prior truths, and is responsible for all existence.

Essentially, the theist is saying that contingency is the essence of being, otherwise God would not be necessitated. However, in God existing, contingency is no longer the essence of being, for you have a being (God) that exists without contingency. Therefore, it is conceivable that non-contingent beings may exist.

Ultimately, the theory is flawed because God is only necessary if the essence of being is contingency. Yet if God exists, then contingency is not the essence of being, for a non-contingent being exists.



2. The original being cannot be perfect

God cannot be perfect because in being perfect, He comprimises His self-necessity. Perfection is generally adhering to a purpose. For example, in achieving a perfect score in a dart game, you have fulfilled the object of the game with maximum efficiency. However, the object of the game is determined prior to the game, giving the player an object to fulfill.

Similarly, what is perfection for a being exists before the being is actuated into existence. It does not chose what it was actuated for, for that reason was conceived prior to its actuality. In this sense, to be perfect a being must adhere to a prior concept of eprfection.

The issue with God however is that nothing exists prior to Him, there cannot be a prior concept of perfection fro Him to adhere to. Naturally, the theist will respond by saying that God's action defines perfection, rather than adheres to it. This is all well and good until we address how the action is willed. A perfect action would stem from a perfect will, so the reasoning behind that action would be perfect. The problem is, what makes God will a certain action? The notion of a 'perfect will' supposes that the will is adhering to a prior concept of perfection, meaning God is no longer self-necessary.




3. The existence of gratuitous evil renders the existence of a personal God unlikely.

There are several arguments I could have applied from the problem of evil but for convenience sake (both mine and Naci's) I'll employ one of the simpler and more straight-forward arguments. The issue is the existence of gratuitous evil, in that it renders the existence of a good God unlikely.

Theists often claim that God brings good from all evil, even if we cannot see it. Evil that appears to be purposeless, or seems to have no good brought from it is know as gratuitous evil. In response to gratuitous evil, the theist argues that we cannot know whether it is gratuitous or not, for it is conceivable that God could bring good from it in a way not subject to the limitations of human perception. Therefore, it is impossible to prove that gratuitous evil exists.

However, what we can prove is that certain evils at least appear purposeless. We can't prove if they are purposless or not, but one can safely say that they are certainly designed to appear to be purposeless. The question is then that if good wanted us to believe in Him, why did He not make it obvious that evil was for a good? Instead, He has designed evil in such a way that observing leads one away from God, not towards Him. In this case, it makes the existence such a good God highly unlikely.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'm pretty sure It's NaCl. :V You know, like salt.

 

[Sieguest]

1. God is not necessary

The main philosophical arguments for God seek to prove that God's existence is necessary to actuate the universe. To sum it up, the claim is that all beings are contingent, in that they necessitate prior truths, they are actuated into existence by a prior being. On these grounds, the theists concludes that there must be a self-necessary being that necessitates no prior truths, and is responsible for all existence.

Essentially, the theist is saying that contingency is the essence of being, otherwise God would not be necessitated. However, in God existing, contingency is no longer the essence of being, for you have a being (God) that exists without contingency. Therefore, it is conceivable that non-contingent beings may exist.

Ultimately, the theory is flawed because God is only necessary if the essence of being is contingency. Yet if God exists, then contingency is not the essence of being, for a non-contingent being exists.

The idea that non-contingent beings exist may be true, but that doesn't necessarily mean that contingency isn't the essence of being. A great example is the question: "Which came first? The chicken or the egg?" Whichever came first obviously is non-contingent but those that follow are contingent of it. In that same way, God can be an exception to the idea that the essence of beings is contingency and the rest of being still fall under this idea.

2. The original being cannot be perfect

God cannot be perfect because in being perfect, He comprimises His self-necessity. Perfection is generally adhering to a purpose. For example, in achieving a perfect score in a dart game, you have fulfilled the object of the game with maximum efficiency. However, the object of the game is determined prior to the game, giving the player an object to fulfill.

Similarly, what is perfection for a being exists before the being is actuated into existence. It does not chose what it was actuated for, for that reason was conceived prior to its actuality. In this sense, to be perfect a being must adhere to a prior concept of eprfection.

The issue with God however is that nothing exists prior to Him, there cannot be a prior concept of perfection fro Him to adhere to. Naturally, the theist will respond by saying that God's action defines perfection, rather than adheres to it. This is all well and good until we address how the action is willed. A perfect action would stem from a perfect will, so the reasoning behind that action would be perfect. The problem is, what makes God will a certain action? The notion of a 'perfect will' supposes that the will is adhering to a prior concept of perfection, meaning God is no longer self-necessary.

Then again we must consider who it was that developed language. And gave the word "perfect" the definition it has. Was it God? Or was it us just choosing a way to describe God? I would lean more towards the latter due to the very nature of language itself. Language is just words that people have superimposed ideas upon. In this way people can communicate ideas more efficiently, given that they agree upon what the definition of the word is.

God may have just performed what he did and then humans have set this as a precedent, and then labeled this precedent as perfection and chose to strive for this precedent. In that way, God has adhered to no prior adjective, nor defined one in the way that you've used it. He just performed an action. He still keeps his self necessity.

3. The existence of gratuitous evil renders the existence of a personal God unlikely.

There are several arguments I could have applied from the problem of evil but for convenience sake (both mine and Naci's) I'll employ one of the simpler and more straight-forward arguments. The issue is the existence of gratuitous evil, in that it renders the existence of a good God unlikely.

Theists often claim that God brings good from all evil, even if we cannot see it. Evil that appears to be purposeless, or seems to have no good brought from it is know as gratuitous evil. In response to gratuitous evil, the theist argues that we cannot know whether it is gratuitous or not, for it is conceivable that God could bring good from it in a way not subject to the limitations of human perception. Therefore, it is impossible to prove that gratuitous evil exists.

However, what we can prove is that certain evils at least appear purposeless. We can't prove if they are purposless or not, but one can safely say that they are certainly designed to appear to be purposeless. The question is then that if good wanted us to believe in Him, why did He not make it obvious that evil was for a good? Instead, He has designed evil in such a way that observing leads one away from God, not towards Him. In this case, it makes the existence such a good God highly unlikely.

Looks can be deceiving. Even if evils appear purposeless, that doesn't take away the fact that they do have a purpose, it only means that it is either.

1)Less efficient for one or more reasons, most notably for the reason that if evil was easily identified in its purpose, we wouldn't enjoy some pleasures that we do. Such as this debate for those participating and for those who are interested in readings of this kind.

2)It may be a deficiency in the human to properly identify what the purpose of the evil is. Just like one may not be able to fully understand the purpose as to why we would debate the existence of God, the human may not be able to fully understand the purpose of the evil, and it therefore seem purposeless despite the purpose in fact existing..

I'm pretty sure It's NaCl. :V You know, like salt.

Lol, it's not too big of a deal to me. I've had my name butchered worse. (Much to my surprise.)

 

[Dre89]

The idea that non-contingent beings exist may be true, but that doesn't necessarily mean that contingency isn't the essence of being. A great example is the question: "Which came first? The chicken or the egg?" Whichever came first obviously is non-contingent but those that follow are contingent of it. In that same way, God can be an exception to the idea that the essence of beings is contingency and the rest of being still fall under this idea.

The chicken-egg questions pertain of which form, the conceiver, or the conception of the same being came first. It is a different question.

If God can violate the essence of being and not be contigent, why can't other beings?

Then again we must consider who it was that developed language. And gave the word "perfect" the definition it has. Was it God? Or was it us just choosing a way to describe God? I would lean more towards the latter due to the very nature of language itself. Language is just words that people have superimposed ideas upon. In this way people can communicate ideas more efficiently, given that they agree upon what the definition of the word is.


God may have just performed what he did and then humans have set this as a precedent, and then labeled this precedent as perfection and chose to strive for this precedent. In that way, God has adhered to no prior adjective, nor defined one in the way that you've used it. He just performed an action. He still keeps his self necessity.

Well then let me ask you this. What was the motive behind God's action, randomness?

Whatever the reason may be, even if you say you don't know, aren't you attributing a specific form to God, in that this motivation exists to adhere to some prior model of good? If not, why is there such a motivation?

Looks can be deceiving. Even if evils appear purposeless, that doesn't take away the fact that they do have a purpose, it only means that it is either.

1)Less efficient for one or more reasons, most notably for the reason that if evil was easily identified in its purpose, we wouldn't enjoy some pleasures that we do. Such as this debate for those participating and for those who are interested in readings of this kind.

2)It may be a deficiency in the human to properly identify what the purpose of the evil is. Just like one may not be able to fully understand the purpose as to why we would debate the existence of God, the human may not be able to fully understand the purpose of the evil, and it therefore seem purposeless despite the purpose in fact existing..

But I'm not denying that all evil can result in some good.

The only God that would bring good from all evil is a personal theistic God.

Now if this good God exists, then he has designed evil so that it appears to be gratuitous, it appears to be purposeless. How is it that this God is good if it has designed evil in such a manner that it leads us away from God?

You refer to the fact that the limitations of human perception renders us incapable of properly indentifying the purpose of evil, But at this point, there isn't anything to suggest that evil is brought from good. So the question is, 'even if our perception is limited and we can't fully understand evil, why should we believe it isn't gratuitous rather than it is?'. There is no reason at all. There is no evidence supproting that there is good from eivl, if anything, the only clue evil is not structured to be perceived as pruposeless, which leads one towards atheism, not theism.

What is there to convince the neutral that evil is in fact not gratuitous?

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Me and Naci have decided to set a precedent and initiate a 1v1 debate. To the relief of many people, I will be actually be arguing that God does not exist (so it technically counts as a devil's advocate argument too), and Naci will be arguing that He does.

[...]Obviously, no one else should be posting in here.

[...]This thread can just be considered a draft that can be tweaked for later 1v1 threads, what's important is that we get somehing happening.

If you guys want to discuss this debate, do it in the social thread, not here. I guess the only other people who should post here are the judges once we've finished.

They are called Private Messages. Use them if you want to debate alone. If you want it judged, send the argument to your judge(s) by email. The only reason to have your own topic is for showing off (which may be construed as trolling). It in unnecessary.

 

[Sieguest]

The chicken-egg questions pertain of which form, the conceiver, or the conception of the same being came first. It is a different question.

If God can violate the essence of being and not be contigent, why can't other beings?

But it still holds to the idea that whichever came first is a non-contingent being. Does it not?

Well then let me ask you this. What was the motive behind God's action, randomness?

Whatever the reason may be, even if you say you don't know, aren't you attributing a specific form to God, in that this motivation exists to adhere to some prior model of good? If not, why is there such a motivation?

That's just it. I'm not asserting that he had a motive at all. We've just assumed that he had a motive. Since at the time of his doing, there were no prior precedents to adhere to or a precedent to reference with which to define. His doings are just an occurrence. And just that.

But I'm not denying that all evil can result in some good.

The only God that would bring good from all evil is a personal theistic God.

Now if this good God exists, then he has designed evil so that it appears to be gratuitous, it appears to be purposeless. How is it that this God is good if it has designed evil in such a manner that it leads us away from God?

You refer to the fact that the limitations of human perception renders us incapable of properly indentifying the purpose of evil, But at this point, there isn't anything to suggest that evil is brought from good. So the question is, 'even if our perception is limited and we can't fully understand evil, why should we believe it isn't gratuitous rather than it is?'. There is no reason at all. There is no evidence supproting that there is good from eivl, if anything, the only clue evil is not structured to be perceived as pruposeless, which leads one towards atheism, not theism.

What is there to convince the neutral that evil is in fact not gratuitous?

And this is exactly what many religious texts refer to as a trial of a followers faith. One asking his/herself this question will recognize one of two things.

1. To acknowledging that oneself is imperfect allows that person to acknowledge that there may be good behind the evil, and that it is their own limitations that are preventing them from experiencing it. Then because they now understand that they can't say with any degree of certainty that evil is gratuitous. This thought process here is what may have a neutral person believe that evil may or may not be gratuitous. Leaving the idea at a halfway point.

2. If they are familiar with readings of a religious text. They will identify the problem as a trial of faith. And with these circumstances lining up with text asserting his existence. It displays that good behind the evil.

If one who doesn't follow a religious text but believes in God, then the argument wouldn't apply to them as the attributes attributed to God, would be subject to that person's thoughts on him. example being they may not attribute attributes to him at all and just say that he facilitated what we have here.

They are called Private Messages. Use them if you want to debate alone. If you want it judged, send the argument to your judge(s) by email. The only reason to have your own topic is for showing off (which may be construed as trolling). It in unnecessary.

Read this.

Besides, the way PMs work, it either gets
A) Ridiculously tacky to read due to the continual quoting that it does.
B)It lacks the coherence possible in a thread.
C)It becomes time consuming having to go back and delete the uneeded quotes from the previous exchange.

It also would be less stressful on judges to go with the argument post by post, instead of having to decipher and read through a hamper of links to every single PM that was made during.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Read this.

Besides, the way PMs work, it either gets
A) Ridiculously tacky to read due to the continual quoting that it does.
B)It lacks the coherence possible in a thread.
C)It becomes time consuming having to go back and delete the uneeded quotes from the previous exchange.

It also would be less stressful on judges to go with the argument post by post, instead of having to decipher and read through a hamper of links to every single PM that was made during.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be reading in that entire thread, but I get the idea that this is a new "thang" that you guys are trying out. Have at it, but don't be surprised or angry if people drop in to make comments.

 

[Dre89]

But it still holds to the idea that whichever came first is a non-contingent being. Does it not?

I always thought the idea was that either the chicken or egg was conceived in some way, either through evolutionary process, or just deisgned by God.

That's just it. I'm not asserting that he had a motive at all. We've just assumed that he had a motive. Since at the time of his doing, there were no prior precedents to adhere to or a precedent to reference with which to define. His doings are just an occurrence. And just that.

But in labelling the original being 'God' you are asserting that it in fact had an intellect. An intellect, particularly one of perfection, does not act without motive.

And this is exactly what many religious texts refer to as a trial of a followers faith. One asking his/herself this question will recognize one of two things.

1. To acknowledging that oneself is imperfect allows that person to acknowledge that there may be good behind the evil, and that it is their own limitations that are preventing them from experiencing it. Then because they now understand that they can't say with any degree of certainty that evil is gratuitous. This thought process here is what may have a neutral person believe that evil may or may not be gratuitous. Leaving the idea at a halfway point.

2. If they are familiar with readings of a religious text. They will identify the problem as a trial of faith. And with these circumstances lining up with text asserting his existence. It displays that good behind the evil.

If one who doesn't follow a religious text but believes in God, then the argument wouldn't apply to them as the attributes attributed to God, would be subject to that person's thoughts on him. example being they may not attribute attributes to him at all and just say that he facilitated what we have here.

The problem with resorting to theology is that virtually every theology you're talking about identifies God as perfect, or at least identifies why God created Creation. This then takes us back to the motivation problem.

Secondly, I'd like to demonstrate how the nature of evil suggests that God does not exist.

There are three posibilities- God exists, and evil God exists, or no God exists at all.

An evil God cannot exist because the original being, or being itself, cannot be an absence of being, it doesn't make sense. It cannot be a corruption if nothing was there to corrupt it , and if it was eternal it could not be a corruption because it would have never been in a state of good initially to corrupt. Secondly, if you don't accept the 'good is being' definition, you still cannot argue God is evil for then you have still admitted that He has motives that adhere to a prior concept of good, or deprivation of that good.

Now the only reason why theists conclude that good is brought from all evil is that they have witnessed that good has been brought from certain evils. However, this does not justify that good is brought from all evil.

The issue is why God would only make certain evils appear gratuitous and others not. The test of faith argument is insufficient, for what the test of faith would be is the suffering itself, whether the the theist is willing to suffer for God.

An inconsistency in the nature/result of evil only leads us away from the notion it was designed, or governed by a designer. If evil was present under a designer, it would function for a specific purpose, its nature and outocme would be consistent.. So we can assume that-

-If all evil is gratuitous, then an evil God exists
-If all evil results in some good, a good God exists
-If evil is inconsistent, differing in nature and purpose, it does not impyl deign, therefore a God does not exist.

Now the fact that the problem of evil debate exists is because at least some of the evil in the world appears rgatuitous, meaning ti does not imply prupsoe under a higher deity.

 

[Deleted member]

They are called Private Messages. Use them if you want to debate alone. If you want it judged, send the argument to your judge(s) by email. The only reason to have your own topic is for showing off (which may be construed as trolling). It in unnecessary.

Honestly, go **** yourself.

Continue on, please. It's interesting...

 

[Sieguest]

I always thought the idea was that either the chicken or egg was conceived in some way, either through evolutionary process, or just deisgned by God.

The question entails the idea of the first being a non-contingent being because it does not assume God exists and it is unable to be answered by evolution. In the absence of any assumptions the only thing one can logically say is that whichever came first is non-contingent.

But in labelling the original being 'God' you are asserting that it in fact had an intellect. An intellect, particularly one of perfection, does not act without motive.

You said earlier that the concept of perfection could not be prior to God else He would lose His self-necessity. Also remember that the idea of perfection wasn't placed on God until we placed the idea of what perfection was onto his deeds. The intellect adhered to nor defined any adjective during it's actions. We came later, after he had done his deeds and we set them as a precedent and labeled it perfection. It is in this way that God retains his self-necessity and still performed his deeds while being the epitome of perfection.

Secondly, I'd like to demonstrate how the nature of evil suggests that God does not exist.

There are three posibilities- God exists, and evil God exists, or no God exists at all.

An evil God cannot exist because the original being, or being itself, cannot be an absence of being, it doesn't make sense. It cannot be a corruption if nothing was there to corrupt it , and if it was eternal it could not be a corruption because it would have never been in a state of good initially to corrupt. Secondly, if you don't accept the 'good is being' definition, you still cannot argue God is evil for then you have still admitted that He has motives that adhere to a prior concept of good, or deprivation of that good.

Now the only reason why theists conclude that good is brought from all evil is that they have witnessed that good has been brought from certain evils. However, this does not justify that good is brought from all evil.

The issue is why God would only make certain evils appear gratuitous and others not. The test of faith argument is insufficient, for what the test of faith would be is the suffering itself, whether the the theist is willing to suffer for God.

An inconsistency in the nature/result of evil only leads us away from the notion it was designed, or governed by a designer. If evil was present under a designer, it would function for a specific purpose, its nature and outocme would be consistent.. So we can assume that-

-If all evil is gratuitous, then an evil God exists
-If all evil results in some good, a good God exists
-If evil is inconsistent, differing in nature and purpose, it does not impyl deign, therefore a God does not exist.

Now the fact that the problem of evil debate exists is because at least some of the evil in the world appears rgatuitous, meaning ti does not imply prupsoe under a higher deity.

This is a good point, given that God was the original designer of evil, but the problem of evil also has a facet including the question of whether God created evil or did man create evil?

It is perfectly plausible that God gave man knowledge and that man has abused this knowledge and created evil in this way.
One would then ask: "Why did God give them this knowledge in the first place?"
The answer would be that man needed this knowledge to perform good.

If man is the creator of evil, then it's inconsistency is of no detriment to God's existence as it is a thing of man and not Him.

 

[Dre89]

Sorry I haven't gotten around to replying to this, I've been busy. I'll reply to it when I get that chance, I can't at the moment because I'm at work.

 

[Dre89]

I decided to double post so that you would know I've finally made my reply.

The question entails the idea of the first being a non-contingent being because it does not assume God exists and it is unable to be answered by evolution. In the absence of any assumptions the only thing one can logically say is that whichever came first is non-contingent.

I disagree but I guess it's not really relvavnt so we'll leave it at that.

You said earlier that the concept of perfection could not be prior to God else He would lose His self-necessity. Also remember that the idea of perfection wasn't placed on God until we placed the idea of what perfection was onto his deeds. The intellect adhered to nor defined any adjective during it's actions. We came later, after he had done his deeds and we set them as a precedent and labeled it perfection. It is in this way that God retains his self-necessity and still performed his deeds while being the epitome of perfection.

Playing language games and saying 'we just labelled it perfection' doesn't change the fact that God acted, adhering to no prior objective.

Perfect or not, the fact that God acted displays that His intellect, like a human one, is subject to certain variables, it appears to necessitate a prior truth, which of course violates His self-necessity.

So how is it that God has acted, without being subject to varibales/prior truths?

This is a good point, given that God was the original designer of evil, but the problem of evil also has a facet including the question of whether God created evil or did man create evil?

It is perfectly plausible that God gave man knowledge and that man has abused this knowledge and created evil in this way.
One would then ask: "Why did God give them this knowledge in the first place?"
The answer would be that man needed this knowledge to perform good.

If man is the creator of evil, then it's inconsistency is of no detriment to God's existence as it is a thing of man and not Him.

That's a fair point I guess. I feel tyring to argue this would be just arguing for the sake of it, and would just be kicking a dead horse.

There's no real need to respond to my posts, since we're just repeating ourselves now, which is my fault for starting the debate with an argument which didn't lead anywhere.

To be honest, I think this debate has already run its course, and I have to say for a God debate it is very immature. The debate is leading nowhere, and I blame myself for that with the way I started it with my opening argument/s.

I'm really dissappointed, because our abortion debate was much, much, better. I'm sure you'll agree this was a poor debate and wasn't really up to our personal standards.

I guess we get the judges to judge now?

 

[Sieguest]

Playing language games and saying 'we just labelled it perfection' doesn't change the fact that God acted, adhering to no prior objective.

Perfect or not, the fact that God acted displays that His intellect, like a human one, is subject to certain variables, it appears to necessitate a prior truth, which of course violates His self-necessity.

So how is it that God has acted, without being subject to varibales/prior truths?

You may call it language games, but that's a fact. Humans developed their language did they not? Which means that humans defined what perfection was, and God's actions were labelled as perfection because humans agreed upon the idea associated with the word being equivalent to God's being. And what are these variables that you are referring to. Do you mean the thought processes of the brain? If so Then those are not prior to God, but are with God. Thought process is prior to action, not the person. So God still does not necessitate a prior truth.

Also, language games applies to taking an idea but using different words that encompass that idea in order to try and assert a point. In other words, using the nature of language to either circumvent or assert assert another point. My argument does not try to use the nature of language to assert a point or get around another, but actually explains how the nature of language works and then apply that explanation to explain how God does not necessitate any prior ideas.

That's a fair point I guess. I feel tyring to argue this would be just arguing for the sake of it, and would just be kicking a dead horse.

There's no real need to respond to my posts, since we're just repeating ourselves now, which is my fault for starting the debate with an argument which didn't lead anywhere.

To be honest, I think this debate has already run its course, and I have to say for a God debate it is very immature. The debate is leading nowhere, and I blame myself for that with the way I started it with my opening argument/s.

I'm really dissappointed, because our abortion debate was much, much, better. I'm sure you'll agree this was a poor debate and wasn't really up to our personal standards.

I guess we get the judges to judge now?

It would branch into the POE.

I'm not sure about the debate having all ready run its course though, the conclusion derived from the first points would either lead back to me having to take another approach to addressing your first argument, or in a concession that a non-contingent being can be the first but that all others must follow afterward.

The conclusions derived from the second point would either end in me having to take another approach to the initial argument or conceding the point which would mean God would not be sel-necessary, or it would end in you taking another approach to my point or conceding that God really does not necessitate a prior truth.

The third would branch into a POE debate which whenever concluded would circle back to the initial point that we were arguing and then have a conclusion as to whether gratuitous evil exists or not.

Then from the conclusions derived from each there is consensus.

I won't say this debate was bad rather than just short-lived. But the abortion debate was definitely better. We can go ahead and find judges if you want to.

 

[Dre89]

I just feel we'll just keep repeating ourselves. I've alerted the judges. We can always have another debate, next time you can have the opening post so it isnt so short lived.

 

[AltF4]

I'm going to rate the debate on the basis of several relevant categories. Each out of 10. The total score incorporates them all, but is not a strict average.

Clarity (How well could I understand you?)
Persuasion (How well did your argument attempt to convert?)
Correctness (Points off for every time you say something untrue)
Support (How well were assertions backed up be evidence / reason?)
Misc


Dre:

Clarity: 7. Had difficulty understanding you much of the time. Had to re-read lots of peculiarly worded sentences.

Persuasion: 6. I know plenty of theists who would grant you each of your assertions and still hold their idea of a god. I don't think it was terribly persuasive.

Correctness: 8.

Support: 8. You certainly tried. Though you (expectedly) only gave philosophical reasoning. I think you may gain a large amount of persuasion if you allow yourself to see this as not merely a philosophical topic.

Also. When you're giving an argument that you did not create, or is otherwise well known, refer to that argument. Like when you were talking about whether god chooses what perfection is, or if perfection is defined by what god is. This is the Euthyphro Dilemma. I'm sure you know about this.

Being able to refer to an established argument like this, and providing a link does many things in a debate:

1) Establishes knowledge. It shows that you have knowledge about the subject matter.
2) Gives credence to the idea. Demonstrates that you didn't just make all this up, that other people have thought about it, and that it is indeed a valid argument.
3) Gives clarity. Allows others to inspect the argument in greater detail than what you are posting.

Misc: The structure of this debate was odd. You as the atheist were making positive assertions about the non-existence of god. You really should have begun with what god you're trying to disprove. There are millions that people have invented.

It became evident after a short while that you were talking about the judeo-christian god. Which is fine, but was the source of confusion for me early on.




NaCl:

Clarity 9. I had no problem understanding much of anything you said.

Persuasion 5. See Misc:

Correctness 6. Some of the early statements that Dre made were correct. Namely that if SOME thing exists without being created, then "Contingency is not the essence of being". IE: If there is something which exists and was never created, then clearly it is not necessary to have been created in order to exist.

Support 7. Much of your assertions were merely backup up with more assertions. When you assume that your all-powerful god is also all-good, a reasonable objection is the "Problem of evil".

Then you counter that by making more baseless assumptions about the nature of god. Namely that he must be tricking us into thinking that what he's doing is evil (Which itself sounds evil to me) but is really not. You give no support why you think this might be the case. You just throw it out and presume it's Dre's responsibility to disprove it.

Misc You didn't provide any arguments for the existence of god. You just tried to counter some of Dre's arguments. Even if you had succeeded completely, you would have established nothing. Only that those particular arguments are not valid.

Take the initiative and try to make your case. Not coincidentally, this is probably why the debate ran so short.



Winner: Dre

 

[rvkevin]

Like when you were talking about whether god chooses what perfection is, or if perfection is defined by what god is. This is the Euthyphro Dilemma.

The Euthyphro Dilemma specifically refers to "what is pious". While the "what is perfection" question follows the same form of the dilemma, it is not the Euthyphro Dilemma.

 

[Dre89]

The euthyphro dilemma is a refutation of divine command theory, not God's existence in general, so the argument was different.

Nevertheless, I appreciate the effort in the judging Alt.

 

[rvkevin]

The euthyphro dilemma is a refutation of divine command theory

No, it is not. Someone holding divine command theory is consistent with Euthyphro's dilemma. It is the option that the pious is the pious because it is commanded by the gods. This is just not a particularly pleasant position to take (because if the god's commanded murder, then murder would be pious), which is why it is called a dilemma, but it does not refute it by any means.

 

[Sieguest]

Cool beans. Thanks for judging Alt.
Now for cake and ice cream.