CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:46
Arguments:26
Total Votes:71
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 All of Delvis' Arguments (28)

Debate Creator

Cartman(18205) pic



All of Delvis' Arguments

Delvis has not given anyone a chance to refute his arguments.  Please post any argument from Delvis so we can all refute it publicly.
Add New Argument
1 point

The Modal Epistemic Argument.

1. If a rationally believable first order proposition is possibly true, then it is knowable (first premise),

2. The proposition ‘God does not exist’ is unknowable (second premise),

3. The proposition ‘God does not exist’ is rationally believable (third premise) ,

4. The proposition ‘God does not exist’ is first order (fourth premise),

5. The proposition ‘God does not exist’ is not possibly true (from 1, 2, 3 and a)

6. The proposition ‘God does not exist’ is necessarily false (from 5),

Conclusion : The proposition ‘God exists’ is necessarily true (conclusion, from 6).

-Delvis

Cartman(18205) Disputed
1 point

Premise 4 is not true. "God does not exist" is not a first order proposition.

Therefore, premise 1 does not apply to it. And, conclusion from 6 is wrong.

And, premise 5: (from 1, 2, 3 and a)

What? Where did 'a' come from.

Delvis(221) Disputed
-2 points
1 point

This is not debating... This is called belittling...

1 point

That is how you get back at us??? Down voting are post is not effecting us... Thanks by the way.

Cartman(18205) Disputed
0 points

I like your new picture. It makes perfect sense. You debate just like someone who has lost all of their memory.

1 point

Argument from contingency

1. Something exists.

2. Whatever exists is either possible or necessary.

3. If that something which exists is necessary, then there is a necessary existent.

4. Whatever is possible has a cause.

5. So if that something which exists is possible, then it has a cause.

6. The totality of possible things is either necessary in itself or possible in itself.

7. The totality cannot be necessary in itself since it exists only through the existence of its members.

8. So the totality of possible things is possible in itself.

9. So the totality of possible things has a cause.

10. This cause is either internal to the totality or external to it.

11. If it is internal to the totality, then it is either necessary or possible.

12. But it cannot in that case be necessary, because the totality is comprised of possible things.

13. And it also cannot in that case be possible, since as the cause of all possible things it would in that case be its own cause, which would make it necessary and not possible after all, which is a contradiction.

14. So the cause of the totality of possible things is not internal to that totality, but external to it.

15. But if it is outside the totality of possible things, then it is necessary.

Conclusion : So there is a necessary existent, and this necessary existent is what is referred to as God.

-Delvis

Cartman(18205) Disputed
2 points

God violates premise 4 since it doesn't have a cause. Therefore, God is not possible. God is also not necessary, therefore premise 2 is violated. Since premise 2 is violated, God does not exist.

Conclusion : So there is a necessary existent, and this necessary existent is what is referred to as God.

This violates a previous rule set by Delvis. Delvis said you aren't allowed to define anything by what it does. He says that it has to be defined by what it is. His conclusion is invalid because he has defined God as whatever created the universe. This comes from ignorance of definitions.

The contingency argument proves that the singularity that started the universe wasn't natural. It does not prove a God.

1 point

Unfortunately most of what Delvis says is nonsensical and he has never presented any valid arguments , his tactic seems to be to string together a string of contradictory nonsense which even he does not comprehend , I think he should cut down on the weed :)

1 point

I found some arguments that are valid, just wrong. You can respond to what I have posted to show his arguments are false.

1 point

He is on something stronger then weed... He is just to high to realize how much nonsense he actually post. Then he thinks he is undefeated!!! He is funny i a undefeated if anyone is. I make valid points but guess what i am not undefeated . I am fully aware people can win a debate if they have the right sources

2 points

I note he has not openly taken on any challenge to his arguments

1 point

If you have the right to exist outside of Hell, why are you not burning in it now?

1 point

If you have the right to exist outside of Hell, why are you not burning in it now?

Cartman(18205) Disputed
0 points

Cuaroc said it better.

0 points

1) Science can only observe what is measurable and quantifiable.

2) What is measurable and quantifiable is finite by definition.

3) But if God were finite, then by definition it wouldn't be God.

4) So your claim of “”no evidence for God” is based on either a complete ignorance of the definition of God, or a consciously created Straw Man.

5) Further, science cannot determine what is True, because science-- by definition-- must always be subject to change.

6) If it were not subject to change, then it wouldn't be science.

7) But if something is subject to change, then it can be true today but not tomorrow.

8) But if something is true today but not tomorrow, then it was never true to begin with.

9) So if you base your claims on your assumed certainty of science, then by definition, they are based on a constant state of uncertainty.

Conclusion : Claiming there is no evidence of God basing yourself on science only reflects an ignorance of basic definitions, and a contradictory assumption of knowledge.

-Delvis

Cartman(18205) Disputed
2 points

First:

1) Science can only observe what is measurable and quantifiable.

2) What is measurable and quantifiable is finite by definition.

3) But if God were finite, then by definition it wouldn't be God.

Therefore: You can't find evidence of God. A claim of there not being evidence for God would then be completely justified.

Conclusion : Claiming there is no evidence of God basing yourself on science

This is the exact conclusion he needs. If science could find evidence of God according to him it would be meaurable and finite (premise 2). If God was measurable and finite it wouldn't be God by definition (premise 3)

Second:

4) So your claim of “”no evidence for God” is based on either a complete ignorance of the definition of God, or a consciously created Straw Man.

The claim that there is no evidence for God would be true according to premise 1,2, and 3 so it can't be ignorance and it isn't a strawman since it is the Atheist argument.

Third:

Premise 5 is wrong. Being subject to change does not mean you can't determine what is true.

Fourth:

Premise 2 is false. You can measure and quantify parts of an infinite system. Premise 2 would be more accurate as: What is infinite, can't be fully measured and quantified. The problem with using an accurate statement is that premise 3 becomes irrelevant, and premise 4 would be inaccurate.

Fifth:

"Is" is the third person singular present of be. Saying there is no evidence for God is referring to the present. Claiming that saying "there is no evidence for God" implies that the person is saying that there will never be evidence for God reflects massive ignorance of the definition of the word "is".

Dermot(3644) Disputed
2 points

The conclusion of this argument according to Delvis ..Conclusion : Claiming there is no evidence of God basing yourself on science only reflects an ignorance of basic definitions, and a contradictory assumption of knowledge.

This is a totally flawed statement , I claim there is no God because a God does not fill the criteria of existent things as in a God cannot be seen , heard or touched so therefore does not fill the criteria of existent things , science has found no evidence to support the claim of a supernatural god so it's you who is ignorant on definitions and lack of knowledge

0 points

This is what happens when weasels like you try to sneak in bullshit counter arguments. Your example does not even apply.

That's why I'm going to answer you here, as well as on the top of the page so everyone can see.

Example 1) ""When you ask someone what their favorite color is, what is the objective standard that serves as reference?""

There is no objective vs. subjective dichotomy when you ask someone ""what is your favorite color"" ?, because the words ""your favorite"" already implies an objective answer.

If you ask me what is my favorite color, and I tell you it's red. Then there is no room for subjectivity.

Example 2) ""When you ask someone what the best tv show ever made is, what is the objective standard ?"""

This is another cowardly weasel tactic. And it's done with the intention to catch off guard those who are untrained. But not me.

That is a contradictory question. You do not ask someone: "" What is the best tv show ever made "".

What you ask someone is : ""What is YOUR favorite tv show ever"". And once again, the answer will be objective.

-Delvis

Cartman(18205) Disputed
1 point

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

There is no objective vs. subjective dichotomy when you ask someone ""what is your favorite color"" ?, because the words ""your favorite"" already implies an objective answer.

It literally implies the exact opposite. A favorite anything for a person is based on the personal feelings, tastes, and opinion of the person being asked.

Delvis' argument against subjectivity is solely based on ignorance of definitions.