Pantheism is the most unique faith which demonstrates atheism

same debate as the previous

Round 1

1 of 4

pierree

Pro #1

Hello and I have to apologise and thank SomeDebatePerson to have accepted this other debate which I hope will have a better conduct from myself personally because in the previous one I was extremely busy with other things going on.

To redirect y'all to the previous one, here's the link https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/d/2t/pantheism-is-the-most-unique-faith-which-demonstrates-atheism

I'm starting off the very last argument made by my opponent:

"Pantheism cannot explain the problem of evil as good of theism. Pantheism leads to moral ambiguity. Pantheism is circular reasoning. There is no proof the universe is eternal. There is no proof the universe must exist. What does universe even mean?"

If my opponent will be okay with what I'm just going to do, I will answer and at least try to explain what I think.

1."Pantheism cannot explain the problem of evil as good of theism. "

In pantheism we do not have the problem of evil, if everything is God therefore what we call "evil" is something that harms us, evil has a task as much as "good" has, they're purely trascendent concepts, they want us to detach us from the material view of reality. It is something that prevents us to describe something we do not have the capacity to understand, to know.

Theism adoperates the concepts of good and evil themselves to describe what is "good and evil" according to Divin Order, the real problem of theism is the metaphysical phallacy at it's foundation:

You = Defined Being -> Incomplete being -> Imperfection -> Be good and evil

But the real problem is that this inexactitude years and years before the scientific-humanitarian advent , was identified as "temptation"(correct me if I'm wrong on names I'm translating Italian), when each of us is different from each other.

To close this point in a meticulous manner, as many neo-thelogic visions provide, evil is due to the inexact use of the own freedom and the egoistical use of human responsibility.

2. Pantheism leads to moral ambiguity. Pantheism is circular reasoning.

I included two points because it'd be the double length only analizing the points one for one, my bad - The ethic of pantheism it's based indeed the acceptance of the non-existence of God, it aims indeed to take apart the moral disembiguites of theism, every human being is moral because we have no more the need to alienate ourselves in something eternal, which prevent us to live.

The circular reasoning of pantheism is definitely more sensible compared to the theistic logic, to explain the physical good and evil there is science, which indeed proves the diversity of the human being.

Hope it's enough exhaustive, if you want to talk about the third and the fourth stances about universe I will procede

without hesitation.

SomeDebatePerson

Con #2

The Problem of Evil

In theism, the problem of evil is solved by saying that God can use evil done by men or angels to bring out greater good. Pantheism just says there either is no good or evil or that evilness is actually good.

The ethic of pantheism it's based indeed the acceptance of the non-existence of God, it aims indeed to take apart the moral disembiguites of theism, every human being is moral because we have no more the need to alienate ourselves in something eternal, which prevent us to live.

How can ethics be based on the acceptance of the nonexistence of God? It seems to be saying that sin is OK because God does not exist. This seems to be circular reasoning. It also uses God to define sin and then says sin is fine since God doesn’t exist.

Ethics of Pantheism

Your idea of pantheism also says that humans are equal and need to be treated right because God doesn’t exist and there is no eternal. This seems to take the ethics of theism and then say these ethic are true and work because of the nonexistence of God.

I’ll put it this way:

Theism says we are special because we are created in the image of God.

Pantheism says we are not special because we are not created by God and therefore not made in His image.

Pantheism then uses not being special to make us special, saying that since we are essentially worthless, we are special and lucky to even be alive.

Pantheism makes us special because we were an accident. Theism makes us special because we weren’t an accident. Your pantheism seems to come to some of the same ethics but just come to these conclusions in the exact opposite way.

Eternal Universe

Pro still has been unable to explain how the universe can be eternal or the one necessary thing that must exist. What do Pro and other pantheists even mean when they talk about the universe? Theists can define what God is and state proofs for His existence, but pantheists can’t even define any of their terms needed or use proof for their beliefs.

Round 2

2 of 4

pierree

Pro #3

How can ethics be based on the acceptance of the nonexistence of God? It seems to be saying that sin is OK because God does not exist. This seems to be circular reasoning. It also uses God to define sin and then says sin is fine since God doesn’t exist.

What is the ethics of pantheism? (briefly 'cause it'd take too much to explain all the thing, I'll try my best)

For Spinoza the ethic is a direct product of the human nature and the social structure.

It does not come from the God or from the arbitrary social conventions.

Deus Sive Natura: everything that exists follows the mandatory rules of the Natura, the human being itself is a part of the Nature/God, therefore the ethics of the human being directly come from the universal laws. This point is crucial also for the transition from pantheism to atheism for the rationalists/materialists, I will talk about this topic in the next round if necessary.

Every being in the nature is gifted of the Reason, especially the human being.

The human being also has the Conatus, summarly, the effort to persevere in being and leave the trascendental ideals(very marxists imo).

Just by this we can conclude that in reality the human being is neither worthless nor useless nor even less just something pointless. Us humans as every other being on Earth and in the Universe are the part of the God and part of the Nature "purpose".

Pantheism doesn't require to define what is a sin because we simply don't need to, the "good" is something that elevates our power, the "evil" is something that could possibly harm us.

The morality is not something that need God to be justified, because as said before it comes from the universal laws that also affect the human being as part of God, if you want to demonstrate this we could apply the Hume's Theories about the mutual simpaty which is part of our nature as human being.

You may probably know but demonstrating what spinoza's says by Formal Geometrical Logic as it is in the Ethics itself will totally make this debate incomprehensible.

The Universal Argument

First point: "The Universe is eternal?"

NO, science itself can demonstrate this. The Universe is not eternal, at least in the way that physicians means which is quite consistent compared to the theological meaning of eternal. More specificaly, the univeral velocity of changing is around the 73 km/s per megaparsec - the Hubble Constant - and for the Cosmological Big Bang Constant around the 67 km/s per megaparsec. So definitely is not eternal and won't last forever, for our technologies and studies at the moment.

Second (controversial) point: "Why the Universe exists?"

Simply, pantheism is simply not metaphysical due to the conatus.

We must accept that we do not need explanations because they will may us estrange us from existance.

"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature; but he is a thinking reed. A man is weaker than nature’s forces — a mere reed that can be destroyed by a drop of water or a puff of air.

But because he can think, he is greater than the universe that crushes him: the universe doesn’t know that it is crushing him, but man knows that he is dying and why.

His dignity, then, lies not in physical strength but in his awareness and capacity for thought." - Blaise Pascal

SomeDebatePerson

Con #4

Every being in the nature is gifted of the Reason, especially the human being.

From whom is this gift given? Can randomness give someone something?

Just by this we can conclude that in reality the human being is neither worthless nor useless nor even less just something pointless. Us humans as every other being on Earth and in the Universe are the part of the God and part of the Nature "purpose".

What does that even mean? How is there purpose when there is no order?

This is the classic you’re-so-worthless-that-you’re-not argument.

Purpose is defined as “the object toward which one strives or for which something exists” We also say something was done “on purpose,” which means intentional. I’m guessing you believe the universe is something neither accidental nor intentional.

Pantheism doesn't require to define what is a sin because we simply don't need to, the "good" is something that elevates our power, the "evil" is something that could possibly harm us.

All morality becomes relative in this case. A civilization cannot function if “right” only means “right for you.”

The Universe is not eternal, at least in the way that physicians means which is quite consistent compared to the theological meaning of eternal. More specificaly, the univeral velocity of changing is around the 73 km/s per megaparsec - the Hubble Constant - and for the Cosmological Big Bang Constant around the 67 km/s per megaparsec. So definitely is not eternal and won't last forever, for our technologies and studies at the moment.

Don’t even get me started on Edwin Hubble. Hubble made up all his stuff so he didn’t have to bow to God when he saw that the Earth was actually in the center of the universe.

Upon seeing the redshift, he wrote:

Such a condition [the red shifts] would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance.

— E. Hubble, The Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937, p.58

You admit the universe is not eternal, but you claim that the universe is God.

If the universe is not eternal.

And God is eternal.

Then the universe is not God.

We must accept that we do not need explanations because they will may us estrange us from existance.

This is exactly why the key to the past is not the present. The key to the present is the past. God created us in a supernatural way that cannot be traced from observations. The way God created reveals His character.

As for your quote from Blaise Pascal, a Catholic, he is not an pantheist the way you try to make him. He realized man was nothing compared to God. He realize man is made in the image of God, and can therefore can think rationally and aware.

Where does rationality and awareness come from if it comes from an irrational and unaware universe?

Round 3

3 of 4

pierree

Pro #5

"Where does rationality and awareness come from if it comes from an irrational and unaware universe?"

They come from evolution, studying basic biology isn't a sin.

"How is there purpose when there is no order?"

Where is the no order?

"A civilization cannot function if “right” only means “right for you". "

It isn't about the single being, we're talking about the right for the basic moral instinct observed in every human being. See the studies conducted by Paul Bloom, Karen Wynn, and Frans de Waal about this, they're very interesting. It's very brief this link to the studies because many branches cover this topic, the ones I mentioned are about evolutionary psychology.

The things about Hubble I'd appreciate some sources, they seem made up at the moment or decontestualised.

"If the universe is not eternal.

And God is eternal.

Then the universe is not God."

At the time of Spinoza, we knew pretty nothing about the universal evolution. I advise you to see some recent pantheistic works. The eternity of "God" can last as long we identify God as the substance which also composes us, which is immutable.

SomeDebatePerson

Con #6

“They come from evolution, studying basic biology isn't a sin.”

You have resorted to strawmanning by saying it isn’t “sin.” I never even brought up biology. Perhaps it was just a figure of speech by “sin.”

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution - Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII, paragraph 36

Studying biology only shows how wrong the modern idea of evolution is, especially atheistic evolution.

How does a non-living object become living? A non-living object does not have this sort of potential to become alive randomly.

How does a single-celled organism become a multicelled organism? Cells do not have the potential in themselves to go from single to multi.

Finally the hardest problem is where rationality comes from. The ability to grasp immaterial concepts cannot come from pure material objects. This shows the soul actually exists.

You have also failed to show where the sense of morality comes from. You believe in a subjective sense of right and wrong.

“The things about Hubble I'd appreciate some sources, they seem made up at the moment or decontestualised.”

It’s one of those times where something sounds so false or crazy that it must be true because no one could come up with something like this.

Here is the source and another one too. Just click on the links. Here is from the official book with a search. Another from wikiquote.org.

The Earth is in the center of the universe, but scientists don’t want us to know this because then they will have to face God’s judgment. If the Earth is in the center of the universe, there is no way it was an accident. Instead of going with the simplest explanation, they create crazy theories with no evidence to back them up.

Round 4

4 of 4

pierree

Pro #7

"I never even brought up biology."

Yet you question yourself about the provenience of the sense of rationality, which is demonstrated by human biology and neuroscience.

"Studying biology only shows how wrong the modern idea of evolution is, especially atheistic evolution."

Okay define "atheistic evolution". The Evolutionary Theory by Darwin is no more just some theory of "atheists" to prove wrong to theists, their facts that have been demonstrated throughout history and denying all of this only demonstrates the rotted "freedom of speech" for theists.

"You have also failed to show where the sense of morality comes from."

It's proven in the second round, you want kant's demonstration? (admitting you know kant's theories) I won't do it because he proves morality with religion. I showed you Hume's theories about human sympathy for the each other's and it is still not good for you. The things mentioned are products of proven studies, denying all of them demonstrates the mental closure of theists. Logically, you theist can't claim anything if both don't provide proofs for what's said and accuses the other for "atheist agenda".

As someone who studies physics it's totally ridiculous the Einstein argument for his " atheist propaganda agenda", at least be loyal to write down the quotes in full. Einstein claims that eliocentric and geocentric systems are equal except that the eliocentric model, for the knowledge we have, is indeed the best to study in a coherent relativistic system.

Case closed

SomeDebatePerson

Con #8

“Yet you question yourself about the provenience of the sense of rationality, which is demonstrated by human biology and neuroscience.”

Rationality cannot be found in biology. Rationality is immaterial. Pro cannot explain the ability for matter to grasp immaterial concepts.

“Okay define ‘atheistic evolution’. The Evolutionary Theory by Darwin is no more just some theory of ‘atheists’ to prove wrong to theists, their facts that have been demonstrated throughout history and denying all of this only demonstrates the rotted ‘freedom of speech’ for theists.”

My point was that by using simply looking at the complexity of life, one cannot reasonably hold the belief that this process was unguided. Evolution would be too complex for atheism to explain without intelligence behind it. And what do you mean by “demonstrated throughout history”? We don’t know how this alleged evolution even happened.

And about Darwin, we should remember that Darwin’s only real sin was letting his discoveries destroy his faith. His discoveries gave him no reason to become an atheist, and he also made many false assumptions.

Nobelist Polykarp Kusch: “To my mind the most important statement in science, the really fundamental statement, is that the world is ordered.”

Pantheism claims the world isn’t ordered, which is really problematic when the entire world looks ordered. Polykarp Kusch says this is the most important statement in science. If Kusch is correct, then pantheism is not very scientific at all.

“It's proven in the second round, you want kant's demonstration? (admitting you know kant's theories) I won't do it because he proves morality with religion. I showed you Hume's theories about human sympathy for the each other's and it is still not good for you. The things mentioned are products of proven studies, denying all of them demonstrates the mental closure of theists. Logically, you theist can't claim anything if both don't provide proofs for what's said and accuses the other for ‘atheist agenda.’”

I haven’t really seen the details on this. Also, all this really does is try to explain morality without God. It doesn’t prove anything. Saying that God exists makes the concept of morality make much more sense.

“As someone who studies physics it's totally ridiculous the Einstein argument for his ‘atheist propaganda agenda,’ at least be loyal to write down the quotes in full. Einstein claims that heliocentric and geocentric systems are equal except that the heliocentric model, for the knowledge we have, is indeed the best to study in a coherent relativistic system.”

In the comments, you seemed to get really mad at this, but I provided all the sources.

First for anyone voting, here are statements from Einstein that show both heliocentrism and geocentrism work, at least in theory:

“I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment.”

How I Created the Theory of Relativity, speech at Kyoto University, Japan, December 14, 1922, as cited in Physics Today, August, 1982.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#1920s

https://schmidscience.com/cannot-be-found-using-any-optical-test-einstein.html

https://courses.physics.ucsd.edu/2016/Winter/physics2d/einsteinonrelativity.pdf

“The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, “the Sun is at rest and the Earth moves,” or “the Sun moves and the Earth is at rest,” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”

― Albert Einstein, The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2638443-ber-die-spezielle-und-die-allgemeine-relativit-tstheorie

Well, having the sun in the center or the Earth in the center both work.

“I can construct for you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”- Physicist, George F. R. Ellis (emphasis added)

Well, the entire geocentrism vs. heliocentrism debates just rests on philosophy. Einstein could have chosen either model, but because he decided to no longer believe in God, he chose the model that would work better for atheism. This model made our position in the universe not look special, just like what atheists want us to believe. After all, if the Earth is in the center of the universe, that means someone had to put it there.

And guess what? All science is based on philosophy:

G. G. Simpson: “All science is philosophical. A scientist cannot so much as make an observation without reliance on a philosophical premise.”

Since this debate is about pantheism being the most unique faith, I will end by saying pantheism is not very unique. I just seems to be a way to avoid God’s judgment. It also seems to just be putting atheism and theism together. It’s not very original, and it’s not driven by logic but human desires. The human desires ultimately prove God does exist and debunk pantheism.

Pro was unable to show how pantheism was unique in any way.

Leaning Global Moderator

#27

--> @Kohai, @whiteflame

What should be?
And who holds?
The Burden of Proof in a debate on what existence is?

When one argues for Atheism being true?
Or when one argues for a God Theism being true?

I actually thought debate was kind of interesting.

pierree

#26

yes I was referring to the express your vote, but the previous comment didn't take your at. could you vote?

whiteflame Global Moderator

#25

--> @pierree

I’m not sure what you are referring to.

pierree

#24

--> @whiteflame

it didn't take the pin...

pierree

#23

sounds bad but, could you express your vote when you can?

Kohai Administrator

#22

--> @pierree

It looked insufficient from my POV and general reading of the debate. We had a brief discussion in the mod chat and I sent it to whiteflame for final review. Both of us agreed the vote is insufficient and should be removed.

whiteflame Global Moderator

#21

--> @Ultracrepidarian, @SomeDebatePerson, @pierree

>Reported Vote: Ultracrepidarian // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Voted for: pro
>Reason for Decision: too-vague
>Reason for Mod Action:
While the voter is clear pointing out who he believes had the more topical argument, he does not point to any specific arguments made by either side and just awards the debate to Pro based on unstated topical points.

whiteflame Global Moderator

#20

---Ultracrepidarian's former vote---
Voted for: pro
Both sides had good arguments, but I believe pro more directly fulfilled the resolution, that pantheism is 'unique,' whereas many of con's arguments, though valid, are against the correctness of pantheism, not the uniqueness of it.

Perhaps if the resolution was a bit different the victory would have went to con, but pro is the victor of this debate.

Feedback wise, I would recommend sticking to clear contentions or similar for sake of organization. Otherwise, a good effort on both sides!

pierree

#19

understood, but how does it seem for you?

Kohai Administrator

#18

--> @pierree

If it’s insufficient it’ll be removed and they can re vote with a more detailed RFD

pierree

#17

--> @Kohai

just asking, if ultracrepidarian's voting comment isn't sufficient enough, it won't be valid anymore?

Kohai Administrator

#16

--> @SomeDebatePerson

I'll review it in detail when I get home. It does not look sufficient from my immediate perspective.

SomeDebatePerson

#15

--> @Kohai

Does Ultracrepidarian’s vote description seem specific enough?

I don’t think pro, in any way, showed how pantheism was “unique.”

I think there might need to be more description, but I see what is trying to be said.

Just let me know what you think of it.

pierree

#14

ok ai detected opinion rejected, report at least all of the quotes lol

SomeDebatePerson

#13

--> @pierree

“I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment.”
How I Created the Theory of Relativity, speech at Kyoto University, Japan, December 14, 1922, as cited in Physics Today, August, 1982.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#1920s

https://schmidscience.com/cannot-be-found-using-any-optical-test-einstein.html

https://courses.physics.ucsd.edu/2016/Winter/physics2d/einsteinonrelativity.pdf

“The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, “the Sun is at rest and the Earth moves,” or “the Sun moves and the Earth is at rest,” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”
― Albert Einstein, The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2638443-ber-die-spezielle-und-die-allgemeine-relativit-tstheorie

A quote from forbes.com:

“General relativity allows the use of any coordinate system. Pick a system in which the center of the Earth is fixed; indeed, it can be a system in which the Earth is not even rotating about its axis. Then you can derive all the equations of motion in this system. In this system, the Sun is moving, not the Earth.”

Another one:

“So it is not wrong to say that the Sun orbits the Earth. It just leads to much more complicated equations that give you no good intuition for the behavior of gravity.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/03/12/how-general-relativity-complicates-what-we-know-about-earths-orbit/

SomeDebatePerson

#12

--> @pierree

Even AI agrees:

“Einstein's theories of gravity and motion suggest that both geocentric (Earth-centered) and heliocentric (Sun-centered) coordinates can be valid, but in practical terms, the Earth orbits the Sun, not the other way around. While Einstein's framework allows for different perspectives, the scientific consensus supports the heliocentric model as the accurate description of our solar system.”

“Albert Einstein suggested that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, implying that from a certain perspective, it could be considered at rest while the Sun orbits it. He noted that both the geocentric and heliocentric models could be valid depending on the chosen coordinate system, making the debate somewhat irrelevant in the context of general relativity.” - AI responses

SomeDebatePerson

#11

--> @pierree

Everyone always takes the more important parts of quotes.

pierree

#10

share the one for Einstein. the Links you provided said the things that you wrote, except you entered only the parts you wanted lmfao

SomeDebatePerson

If you don’t believe me, go and look up the quotes yourself. I provided links. All honest scientists will admit it is merely done for their godless agenda.

pierree

"Heliocentrism is preferred because it works better for the atheistic agenda." at least be honest that you didn't even contextualize the thing

SomeDebatePerson

--> @pierree

It’s simply ridiculous Hubble didn’t accept the answers. Einstein said both geocentrism and heliocentrism work with general relativity. Heliocentrism is preferred because it works better for the atheistic agenda.

pierree

answer sincerely, have you ever even opened a Hubble's book? try at least mimicking the lecture without bringing up things that doesn't exist.

pierree

are you fucking serious? it's ridiculous, you want convince someone that studies and dives in science every single day to believe in a something that wants to prove the wrong about something observed for hundred of years. cells have the potential. about morality, I brought up Hume theories for a reason, you want kant's demonstration? fine, I'll try but it's simply ridiculous that you don't accept the answers

pierree

from my heart I'm amazed I haven't had an answer yet, let me know if you need some clarification about something in the argument, feel free to ask

SomeDebatePerson

I guess

pierree

would it be okay to just do the argument I missed?

pierree

!!!only SomeDebatePerson can accept this draft!!!

Leaning Global Moderator

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

RFV Short
Debate title and what is being contended is unclear.
Debate gives impression that Pro is arguing that Pantheism is the most likely true faith, and that it is Atheistic.
Whether is Atheistic is not touched by Con in debate.
Con 'does engage with whether Pantheism is true.

Con raises questions of morality, assumes objective morality is necessary,
Hm, but if Pantheism 'does assume morality, and some 'type of objective value for it, then Con 'is raising fair arguments against the specific version of Pantheism argued by Pro.
Con argues limits of science, Pro does not do as much as they 'might to prove all science.

Pro 'does raise arguments for a 'type of objective morality I think.
Possible slight language barrier.
Makes arguments on validity of science and proof in what makes a belief reasonable.

I 'think both sides miss addressing each other's arguments in some bits.
Pro definition of "purpose" might be more along the lines of what is expected to occur?
When flint hits steel, purpose of flint and steel is to spark?

. . . I lean Pro, but I think there was ambiguity in debate, lack of clarified win lose conditions,
Lack of ease maybe in seeing points raised and discussed in debate.
Pro offered many arguments,
Con offered many objections.

RFV Long
pierreeR 1 Previous debate
"Briefly, the Christian's assumption of the incarnation of God in a human being, logically means that exists only one real Christian, the so called "child of God"- Jesus." Pro R1

Christians are 'followers 'of Christ.
Same way for Zenoists following Zeno, or Confucianists following Confucius.

Though I suppose in a sense, all these Way Founders might be the most (Themself)ists, in a sense.
. . .

Defining God is often difficult in debate,
I'm not sure something needs to be transcendent to be considered God,
Nor that some things we partially experience, to not be considered God.
Lot of definitions and views on God.

"Pantheism is the most unique faith which demonstrates atheism" Title

Might have been better as,
Pantheism demonstrates atheism.

But maybe you also should have defined Pantheism, God, Atheism in the description.

Maybe also title would have been better if title was,
Pantheism (If true) demonstrates atheism.

SomeDebatePerson R1 Previous debate
Eh, for some people, certain existences don't need so much explanation, they just 'are.
Pro 'does argue for science explaining various features of existence.

pierree R1 This debate
Offers an explanation of evil,

"Theism adoperates" (adopts?)
"metaphysical phallacy" (fallacy?)

Pro I think argues good and evil are poorly defined by religion.

I find the idea of communicating with people of other languages fascinating, and at times impressive. I can only speak one language.

Still, I think both sides are making more claims then they are managing well to 'prove.

"disembiguites" (disambiguates?)
Remove uncertainty of meaning from (an ambiguous sentence, phrase, or other linguistic unit).

"every human being is moral because we have no more the need to alienate ourselves in something eternal, which prevent us to live." - Pro

Possibly Pro is arguing morality exists, and exists all the more when it is something 'real we interact with,
Pro arguing God religions less moral, due to focus on God, which Pro argues does not exist, thus the morality of God religions 'is not morality, because it does not deal with what is real.
. . . Interesting argument, if such is their argument, though I'd argue God religions 'still deal with humans and their actions on Earth.

I think Pro argues that Pantheism may contain an amount of circular reasoning, but so does God Theism,
But Pro argues Pantheism is more rational, as it's circularity deals with science and what is more at hand, provable and evidenced.
(Though some God theists may disagree that God theism is not provable or evidenced, nor that God theism is divorced from science.

SomeDebatePerson R1
Eh, I'm not sure I'd say the problem of evil is 'solved in theism, though theism 'does offer various answers, such as one Con gives here.

Arguably some versions of Atheism 'also offer answers for good and evil, it's lack of objectivity for one, which 'can be taken as morality not existing.
This 'is 'an answer, it's main problem I 'think is the absurdity and painfulness of it.
But truth and reality 'can be absurd at times.

I don't 'think it's circular reasoning to say that sin is okay because God does not exist.
Arguably Ethics can be based on the nonexistence of God, same way people agree to a game of chess, and the same way a cow chews grass and an eagle eats a rabbit.
Just happens to be the way of humans to latch on to various ideas of morals and ethics.
(Note to self, these are my arguments, not Pros)

I don't 'think Pro has said that humans are equal and need to be treated right.

Eh, not everyone is happy with how all theists define or prove God.
Arguably Pantheism might argued and proved by simply being, as Pro has argued earlier, reliance on provable data and science.

pierree R2
Eh, I'll stick to my Nihilism, but I understand how others might accept or take meaning from Pantheism.

Eh, how did the universe come to be?
If it explodes and implodes 'forever, is this not eternal?
How could existence 'not exist in some form?
Something come from nothing?

I don't really think God Theism quite solves this problem for me either.
But God Theists 'do have arguments for such.

conatus?
A Latin term meaning "effort" or "striving"
Pro argues a 'greater why does not matter,
What is, is,
And is for explainable science reasons.

SomeDebatePerson R2
Con calls out poetic language by Pro, and the implied sacred objective values.
Which I don't think Pro 'needs prove, one can just accept humans pretend as though morality matters. And 'do pretend because it is their nature. As a frog catches flies and a scorpion stings.
But of course many Atheists have a happier view of existence than me.

There 'is order in math and science.
Patterns.

Some people 'do take the view that there is only beauty in something that can be lost or chosen.

I'm not sure Pro needs to prove that morality is not relative.

I'm not sure something 'needs to be eternal for someone to call it God.
Though it might not match someone else's definition of God.

pierree R3
Pro argues similarity of moral habits in humans and beings.
Though I'd argue contrary evil moral habits exist as well.
Either way though, civilizations 'would often pop up I imagine, when conditions are right.

I find Pro arguments on eternity incomplete.

SomeDebatePerson R3
I'm not sure Atheism 'needs objective morality to be a valid theory.
Abiogenesis is still debated I suppose,
Though Atheists might argue it's just a matter of time.
Some might argue it's Theists always pushing back the goal post every discovery.
(But I've not thought deeply on it)

Hubble seems a bit tangent.

pierree R4
Eh, lot of Theist scientists in history.

Argues value of scientific proofs.

SomeDebatePerson R4
Eh, I'm 'pretty sure natural selection and fossils of some extinct species exists.
And are the common held view now.

It 'does seem strange at times, that existence 'is, is 'anything, is so complex and intertwined at times.
'Seems a bit begging the question though.
Questioning what is not yet known, and ignoring what is.

Darwins religious views might be complicated.

I'm not sure it is proven that Pantheism is unordered, many of Pros arguments seem to argue it 'is ordered in certain ways and degrees.

I consider the sun bit, a bit of a tangent.

"Pro was unable to show how pantheism was unique in any way." - Con
I 'really think you should have made more of a point clarifying earlier in the debate, rather than engaging with their arguments al those other rounds.

whiteflame Global Moderator

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

I'm having some serious trouble understanding why this debate got so off track. Neither debater seems particularly interested in tackling the resolution, instead choosing a tangent and moving down that route. When I read this resolution:

"Pantheism is the most unique faith which demonstrates atheism"

I see two assertions that Pro must support: one, that "Pantheism is the must unique faith" and two, that it "demonstrates atheism." I don't see any support for either of these assertions. I don't see any negation of either of them. Instead, what I see is both debaters effectively arguing on this topic:

"Patheism is morally defensible" or "Patheism is more morally justifiable than other theistic views." If that was the debate you two were having, there's substance here to go through and determine who's winning.

Absent that and absent any discussion of burdens, the assertions in the resolution imply that the burden falls on Pro to prove the resolution true. Pro doesn't argue for the resolution as written. The debate defaults to Con. If this is the debate you two want to have, make sure you have a resolution to match.

Kohai Administrator

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

This was extremely painful to read and there was so much wrong with this debate. Let’s begin with the title: “ Pantheism is the most unique faith which demonstrates atheism”. The title alone is bad. Pantheism demonstrates atheism in which way? Does it demonstrate atheism is true, false or something else? Unfortunately we simply do not know.

With an unclear debate resolution it is also unclear on who has the BOP and what that BOP is.

Pro’s r1 is extremely confusing. They don’t address the core problems this debate has and just responded to a few objections to pantheism. Again, what’s the resolution? In which way is pantheism unique? How does it demonstrate atheism in any way shape or form? This was never addressed in any of the rounds.

Con’s arguments were mostly objections to pantheism and upheld traditional monotheism. That’s the problem: Judging from the title this debate has nothing to do with traditional monotheism.

Summary: Neither side met their BOP as the BOP was completely unclear from the start. In addition none of the arguments presented had anything to do with polytheism demonstrating atheism. As such I’m forced to tie this debate.

Advice to pro: I’d really be interested in reading more debates on pantheism. However, you need to have a very clear resolution and a clear burden of proof.

Round 1

The Problem of Evil

Ethics of Pantheism

Eternal Universe

Round 2

Round 3

Round 4

New comment