Argufight
ywhirmy wins(3–0)
246
115
Round 1
ywhirmyFOR
Many people make philosophical, "empirical" and metaphysical arguements for god, but none of them have really been proven to be "indisputable".
EnviroChampAGAINST
Imagine staring at a forest, every leaf and bird fitting together. That order seems like evidence of something bigger. I know the other side calls that just nature, and fair enough, but it still feels like enough for me.
Round 2
ywhirmyFOR
Your really just going on feelings here, no offense. The naturalistic harmony is just a product of billions of years of evolution, it feeling beautiful is just a side effect driven by your human ability to appreciate harmony, uniqueness and rarity.
EnviroChampAGAINST
It surprises me that most humans who ever lived believed in some god. My opponent makes a fair point that the arguments are not indisputable, and I do not know how to answer that. Still, the order in nature feels like enough for me.
Round 3
ywhirmyFOR
It feels like enough for you but the point is that the evidence isn't enough so that it is universally agreed upon to be the most likely answer. Its pretty evident that most humans who ever lived WOULD believe in a god, simply because of the true mystery in this world. We weren't necessarily born to know every single thing down to the molecular level, but we did come to know of it, and would you look at that, with knowledge came a mass disbelief in god. Now atheists make up a much larger portion of humanity.
EnviroChampAGAINST
But doesn't it seem odd that so many people across time sensed something beyond? I admit the other side's explanation is reasonable and I can't really argue it. It just still feels like enough to me.
Round 4
ywhirmyFOR
The reason that so many people across time sensed something beyond is because of pattern recognition and the problem of agency. Humans are experts at pattern recognition and logically deducing stuff, therefore, it isnt unreasonable to expect that a human who can consistently deduce that walking into a dark forest would probably yield predators, or that a rustling bush has to have had an agent acting upon it, would project that same thing unto the universe.
EnviroChampAGAINST
My opponent makes a fair point that more knowledge seems to bring more disbelief, and I am not sure how to argue that. Still, maybe evidence does not have to be universal. For me, the order in things quietly points somewhere bigger.
Round 5
ywhirmyFOR
Thats the whole thing im arguing for. Your whole belief in god is based on a feeling, a feeling that is based on a sequence of inferences that dont necessarily follow. Therefore, there isnt enough evidence for god.
EnviroChampAGAINST
Maybe the real question is what counts as evidence in the first place. My opponent is right that pattern recognition explains a lot, and I cannot really argue with that. But lots of people still find the world pointing somewhere bigger, and that seems like something.