 |
Microsuck's Debates
  |
Atheism is more probable than Theism
For purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined as to include the general attributes of the Judeo-Christian God (i.e.: omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence etc.) That is to say, we are not referring to any specific deity.
"More probable" is to be defined as more likely than not (in other words, atheism is more likely than Theism).
Rules:
The God Hypothesis is a valid Scientific Theory
FIRST ROUND IS ACCEPTANCE AND RULES ONLY Understand that my approach is suppose to be of a scientist using the scientific method not a philosopher like William Lane Craig and other debaters attempt to do, So its a little bit different. I am arguing that the God Hypothesis is a supported scientific theory. In principle, I technically have all the Burden of Proof, but for the purpose of winning and losing this debate, my opponent must successfully poke holes in my science based on the criter...
King James Onlyism
Christians should only accept the King James version of the Bible as their Final Authority and not any other version. Expose the errors in modern versions and defend the superiority of the King James version. Round 1-acceptance. Round 2-4 main arguments and rebuttals Round 5- concluding statements and rebuttals if needed....
The argument from incoherence is a sound argument for the non-existence of God.
1. Anything with incoherent attributes cannot exist;
2. God has incoherent attributes;
3. Therefore, God cannot exist.
Clarifications:
For the purpose of this debate, "God" is going to be defined as having the basic general attributes given to the Judeo-Christian God which are, but not limited to [1]:
It is improbable that God exists
TERMS
Resolved: It is improbable that God exists.
Rounds:
1. Acceptance only
2. Opening arguments
3. Rebuttals
4. Rebuttals/clash (No new arguments)
CLARIFICATION
The Bible is right! Part 2
Resolved: The Bible is right! Part 2 In a recent debate I stated the Bible was right. Though I was over flooded with contradictions and was unable to reply properly to all of them. So in this debate I will allow my opponent to choose three contradictions(only three) to focus on(except the one below.) My opponent can choose any three contradictions in the Bible. This will be the topic. My opponent propses the three contradictions and I must provide reasonable answers to retract the contradic...
Resolved: Obama should be re-elected
Resolved: President Obama should be re-elected for a seond term.
Note that I don't support everything Obama has done, but he has done a very good job for his first term (much better than Bush!) and I believe that he should be re-elected.
Structure
1. Acceptance
2. Opening arguments
3. Rebuttals
4. Rebuttals/closing
Good...
Christians cannot be reasonably assured of eternal salvation.
Thank you for taking the time to review this debate. This is my first, so I beg your indulgence when I inevitably make mistakes. I'm open to anyone taking up this challenge. The Bible states the following in Ezekiel 28:14-19; You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you. Through your widespread trade you were...
Evolution is more probable than Intelligent Design
For this debate, I am accepting "Only a member who is ranked as good as or better than me" because I want a good science oriented debate.
Clarification
What do I mean by the above resolution? What I mean is that the Theory of Evolution has better scientific support via evidence than creationism does.
This d...
