The Debate that can’t be settled

It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle it without debate.

It’s a quote I came across recently, and I have been obsessed by it since. It is then when I considered the following debate in a different light, the debate being on the existence of God itself.

One of the most important requirements of a good debate is the appreciation of the power of logic by both the sides of the house. In its absence, the debate is just reduced to two parties just shouting out at each other without regards to the oppositions ideas.

And that’s the exact reason, why such a debate wont work.

Why? Because if side opposition(the Believers), do appreciate the power of logic, they wouldn’t on the first hand would ever be theists, because a theist has no arguments to back his belief, just faith, a faith that has no logic whatsoever, and this fact is conceded by both the parties.

Thus there is no way this debate can ever be settled, though yes, it may die out one day, either if all the people of the world recognize God, or if all people take the logical path.

If dear reader does contradict me on some issues, please mention it in your comments.


2 thoughts on “The Debate that can’t be settled

  1. I smell from this post of yours that you are an atheist and have a kind of grudge against theism. What I understand is that you are questioning the very roots of the ever-existing debate between the existence of god and declaring it to be essentially baseless and illogical because the party that supports god has no logical reason to do so and their arguments rest purely on faith and it is of no use to an atheist to argue with them. I agree with your definition of a good debate and the requirement of logic but I must remind you that although theism does not prove the existence of god scientifically, atheism is also unable to disprove it scientifically. Being a theist or an atheist is a personal choice. The certainty of the ideas that the two groups represent, has never been proven or disproven. So if you say theism rests on faith, so does atheism, with their faith as ‘god does not exist’- there is no proof of it.
    Secondly, certain definitions of ‘God’ are so general and non-specific that it is almost certain that something exists that satisfies that criterion (Read the wiki page on Existence of God). For example, if I ‘believe’ that every phenomenon in nature is governed by certain laws(which is in fact the general “faith” of scientists and logicists) then I may declare these laws to be the most powerful objects in the infinitude of time/space- who have made everything and that will become my ‘God’. You may prefer to ‘worship’ them or you may not. But if you are told that you can make some daily-life situations favorable for you just by performing some ‘actions’ say reading some ‘divine’ words! – you will do it. But again you cannot prove such things don’t exist.(and here I am assuming only metaphysical naturalism).
    Thirdly going straight and specifically to the definition of ‘God’ that various religions provide and the ‘ethics’ those religions define- I believe these ethics in a way help us live in a more manageable and peaceful way. For otherwise, think for a moment that suddenly everyone comes to know there is no God and we have free will, whatever we do does not matter. Crime rates will increase. Human is greedy and this greed will bring many (who fear God’s rage) out to do anything. Poor will steal for there are no ethics, no one to stop them(of course there is law and order but how much control can they have). There will be chaos everywhere. So ethics and guidelines are necessary and to make people believe them it is necessary you create some structure like that of ‘God’/religion. In this scenario it is necessary to believe in God even if He does not exist and never to disclose the true fact that He does not exist because this is the only way human race will be able to survive. Perhaps our ancestors have witnessed this and thus created Him for us.

  2. : )

    Dear Sir, I do marvel the thought you have put into it, and your analysis on my views is mostly correct. by most existing definitions i am an atheist, i.e., I absolutely refute the existence of an omnipotent altruist all-powerful deity.

    But, at the same time neither am I against the existence of such faith, nor do I believe that a world with ‘atheists’ can peacefully exist.

    As for the definition of God, as far as justifiable contestable assumptions are made, yes they are fine, as far as the theory put forward by believers is arguable upon its fine, what is NOT fine is when these people do not want to see beyond these things.

    The point is I may be wrong in not accepting a deitical God, my assumptions may be flawed or my logic may be faulty itself, but the point is I accept it, and I am all in for hearing every side of the argument, whats NOT acceptable is a person who feels he is absolutely correct about his notions, and unfortunately dear sir, this does transcend into problems, because most practitioners do get annoyed when their mostly premise-less faith is challenged and as they have no good arguments they create chaos.

    As for not disproving the existence of a god either, let me take you back to a time when people believed that all celestial bodies revolved around a fixed earth, As people saw no good reason for it, they attributed this phenomena to a God, then when it was found what was the truth, they said OK these laws are fine, but these laws were created by a god, as was the universe.
    So you see that there arguments have always seen shifts in stance, and an ever receding and redundant becoming god, who people have started attributing to anything they don’t know about.

    So the God people talk about is not a mighty deity, just a phenomena to explain things which are not yet explained by humans, a shrinking phenomena, which a society of rational people might as well do away with. But yes, I do concede that such a society cannot exist, at least not immediately, and as I did say, one of these ideas will one day die down, albeit gradually.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s