The Instigator
debate_power
Pro (for)
Winning
36 Points
The Contender
DeeJay0018
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

All humans ought to assume that the Christian God does not exist, based on lack of evidence.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 10 votes the winner is...
debate_power
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 939 times Debate No: 69308
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (10)

 

debate_power

Pro

Hello. I would like to argue for the statement making up the title of this debate. Con will argue against the statement.

First round is for acceptance
Second round is for opening arguments
Third round is for rebuttals
Fourth round is for further arguments/rebuttals
Fifth round is for conclusions.

The "Christian God", in this case, is the deity described in the holy book of Christianity, which is the Bible.

No semantics or trolling, please.
DeeJay0018

Con

I am obviously going to debate that the statement provided is false.
Debate Round No. 1
debate_power

Pro

Thanks for accepting, Con.

Both scientific observation and Christianity attempt to explain the physical and natural world. Christianity assumes that the direct reason things exist in the first place is an omnipotent being, God. The most widely accepted theory of the universe among astrophysicists is that of the Big Bang theory, rather than that of Christian creation (1).

A being capable of doing whatever it wants at any given time (omnipotent), if proven to exist, would render any existing scientific theories and evidence for things such as creation refutable, as whatever an omnipotent being wills to exist must come to exist (2).

Christianity is not the only religion in the world. In proving itself to be correct, Christianity would prove all other religions, including those that believe in the existence of omnipotent beings, wrong. The burden of proof, therefore, rests not only on those who believe in the existence of the omnipotence of a being, but also on the specific group of theists known as Christians, who believe in the existence of the omnipotent being described in the Bible, the Christian holy book.

Science the study of the natural and physical world (3). Any religion is a standpoint on the aspects of the physical and natural world, as religions believe certain things to exist. Thus, as humans are the ones to whom scientific study and religion are of interest, and because humans have a limited ability to observe the physical and natural world, humans are forced to base their beliefs on limited observation. If there were complete certainty of the existence of an omnipotent being (SPECIFICALLY the Christian God), this debate would not be taking place. If there were complete certainty of the non-existence of an omnipotent being (SPECIFICALLY the Christian God), this debate would not be taking place.

Scientific laws are backed up by scientific observation, and have always been able to predict outcomes with certainty (4).

As scientific laws have always proven useful, we must conclude that science, to an extent, is useful. BASED ON THE LIMITED OBSERVATIONS OF HUMANS, FACTS WHICH DO NOT CONTRADICT OTHER FACTS MUST BE ACCEPTED AS VALID, BECAUSE THERE ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS, BECAUSE ALL THAT HUMANS CLAIM TO BE KNOWLEDGE IS BASED ON LIMITED OBSERVATION.

Christianity contradicts every other religion, thus Christianity cannot yet be accepted as valid. The burden of proof rests on Christians in this case.

The concept of an omnipotent being is not yet validated by any current observation of the natural world which has always proven to be useful or does not contradict other observations to which the usefulness applies. The burden of proof rests not only on Christians, but those who believe in the existence of an omnipotent being.

In any case, belief in the Christian God is not valid until the Christian God is not scientifically proven to exist, because science is based on observation that is proven to be useful.

To sum my argument up:
-Prove that there is an omnipotent being,
-And prove that this being is the Christian God,
-All scientifically,

And humans will have valid cause to be believe in the Christian God.

As this proof has not yet been presented on either count, of Christianity or omnipotence, humans should put their faith in that which has always proven to be useful in the past- that which is the most valid of human knowledge- that which is evidenced by observation of the natural world- science.

Humans should believe as they discover, and treat that which rejects currents observations as false until it is assimilated into observations that support others and are useful.

I thank my opponent once again, and hand this debate over to them.

1. http://burro.astr.cwru.edu...
2. Oxford Pocket Dictionary of English
3. Oxford Pocket Dictionary of English
4. http://education-portal.com...
DeeJay0018

Con

For easy reading and typing, I will refer to PRO as "he" in the instances that "he or she" would generally be accepted.

"All humans ought to assume that the Christian God does not exist, based on lack of evidence." This is the claim that my opponent has asserted. I will attempt to prove this statement false throughout this debate.

I would like to start with this point: the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. [1] In most debates on the subject of religion, it is the one advocating the religion who usually takes on the burden of proof since he is usually the one making the claim. However, in this debate, the shoe is on the other foot; it is up to PRO to prove his statement to be true.

My job in this debate is not to prove that the Christian God exists or even to prove that any omnipotent being exists. It is simply to provide enough evidence to show that it is not the case that all humans ought to assume that the Christian God does not exist based on lack of evidence.

To make the claim that PRO makes is to say that anyone who believes the Christian God exists is committing a logical fallacy. He asserts that if one does not have sufficient evidence, one should not believe that something is true. With this in mind, let"s look at the most common reason Christians put forth to support their idea that there is a God.

Christians choose to believe that the complexity of our universe and of life itself cannot be random, that it must be caused by a deliberate action of an omnipotent being. [2] This is often presented as an analogy, comparing the universe to a watch and God to a watchmaker. This analogy claims that just as a complex watch cannot just fall into existence, neither can the universe; there must be a creator.

Many scientists, as PRO points out, would point to the Big Bang Theory as the reason for the existence of all things. The idea of the Big Bang Theory cannot be taken as fact, however, because there is no way to prove that it is true. [3] Both the Christian explanation and the CURRENT scientific explanation are plausible, while neither can be proven true or false. Both ideas must be taken on faith.

Is there sufficient evidence to believe that there is a God based on the information above? That would be relative to the person reading it, just as the Big Bang Theory may or may not provide sufficient evidence that there is not a need for a god. It is not fair to say that there is a lack of evidence for Christianity when the only evidence the opponent provides is the faith of a different community of people.

I believe I have given enough reason to believe that PRO"s assertion is not necessarily a true one, leaving him with the task of proving otherwise.

To clarify my point, I assert that extensive evidence and proof are not requirements to believe that something is true. The only requirements that would justify (not prove) someone"s belief are that the belief is possible and that there is no evidence to disprove the belief.

"BASED ON THE LIMITED OBSERVATIONS OF HUMANS, FACTS WHICH DO NOT CONTRADICT OTHER FACTS MUST BE ACCEPTED AS VALID, BECAUSE THERE ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS, BECAUSE ALL THAT HUMANS CLAIM TO BE KNOWLEDGE IS BASED ON LIMITED OBSERVATION.

Christianity contradicts every other religion, thus Christianity cannot yet be accepted as valid. The burden of proof rests on Christians in this case."

The Big Bang Theory, while widely accepted, has not been proven to be fact and contradicts the teachings of several religions; therefore, based on the above statement made by PRO, the Big Bang Theory cannot be accepted as valid.
As I said before, in a normal debate about religion, the burden of proof is on the side of the religious; however, in this instance, it is not correct to claim that Christianity is false simply due to a lack of evidence. Doing so would, in turn, force one to assume that every claim made about the beginning of our universe to be invalid as none of them have been proven fact, and most of them contradict the others.

[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
[2] http://www.everystudent.com...
[3] http://science.nationalgeographic.com...
Debate Round No. 2
debate_power

Pro

Okay, now it's time for some rebuttals.

First, though, to clarify: When I mentioned the burden of proof, I meant that, in a debate for the existence for the Christian God, the burden of proof would lie on the side of the person arguing for the existence of the Christian God. My opponent realized this, so I see no need to go any deeper into that aspect. Which is not to diminish the importance of the need for Christians to prove their God, of course.

Rebuttals:
-Con claims that the Big Bang theory cannot be taken as fact, because there is no way to prove that the Big Bang is the reason for the existence of the universe. It is true that there is no "Big Bang Law". However, there is Hubble's Law, which states that there is a direct correlation between the distance to a galaxy and its recessional velocity as determined by the red shift (1). This scientific LAW implies that universal expansion is taking place, and even describes exactly how this expansion takes place, supporting the Big Bang theory very well. Naturally, Con could easily claim God's responsibility for the Big Bang. In any case, evidence for a god, specifically the Christian God, is still needed, and my stance is not weakened. Hence the "burden of proof" I mentioned earlier.

-Con claims that, based on my logic, the Big Bang theory cannot be accepted as valid. Is this really the case? It cannot be. The Big Bang theory is a scientific theory and backed up with scientific evidence- I already mentioned Hubble's law. Con asserts that the Big Bang theory "contradicts the teachings of several religions". As Con has not mentioned which religions the Big Bang theory supposedly contradicts, I cannot rebut this claim fully. However, the definition of "religion" is as follows:

"The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." (2)

Once again, for religions to be accepted as scientific fact, there must be scientific evidence for what they teach. Religions require scientific proof for the existence of each's "superhuman controlling power" or powers to be accepted as valid by science.

As the Big Bang theory seeks to explain the formation of the universe through expansion of a singularity, there must be evidence of universal expansion for the theory to be supported. Which there is. For the Christian creationist standpoint to be supported, because of the Christian creationist's standpoint's reliance on the existence of God, the existence of God must be supported. There is no scientific evidence of the existence of God; therefore, the Big Bang theory is supported by science, and the Christian creation is not.

I mentioned "lack of evidence" in the title. Scientific theories ARE supported by scientific evidence; they merely cannot be used to predict outcomes with certainty. The difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory is that a law can be used to predict outcomes with certainty. Just as Hubble's Law can.

To actually even stand against scientific theories such as the Big Bang, religious versions of creation require scientific evidence for the existence of their creator beings. The singularity theory is supported by evidence (which is why it is a scientific theory), and the Christian creation is not, simply because there is no scientific evidence for a God. Con does not seem to have yet disputed the lack of evidence.

The validity of the Christian creation always depends on the existence of a God. God could have logically caused the Big Bang, could he not? How is the observer to know how the Big Bang happened, in the case of God causing it, without proof of God in the first place?

My argument does not negate the title, as is seen.

-Con asserts that my point about Christianity not being valid because of its contradiction by all other religions does not mean that Christianity is not a valid belief. My point was meant to be taken in the current context, with all religions lacking scientific evidence for themselves. When various proposals with no evidence to back them up are argued over, how is a person logically justified in choosing any one proposal to put their faith in? I mentioned in earlier arguments the need for Christians to prove themselves right over all other religions, and, if an omnipotent being is proven to be real, the need for Christians to prove that being is the Christian God. As there is no scientific proof for any superhuman controlling being, belief in any religion is not logically justified.

The burden of proof is still on Christians to prove the existence of their deity. Known scientific fact is the starting point, so to speak; to justify belief in a divine, all-powerful entity, "existence in a divine, all-powerful entity" must join the realm of "scientific fact", because, as I mentioned before, science is composed of observations that support other observations, and such observations are the best ones that humans have.

The starting point, science, based on proven observation, is the entity to be added to. Science is merely observation of the natural and physical world.

Science is the evidence all humans ought to base their beliefs on. This includes beliefs in deities. Any theist treats their deity as a scientific fact, as an observation supported by evidence.

The problem occus when that observation is not actually supported by any evidence.

Now over to Con.

1. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
2. Oxford Pocket Dictionary of English



DeeJay0018

Con

DeeJay0018 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
debate_power

Pro

Extend all above arguments!
DeeJay0018

Con

DeeJay0018 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
debate_power

Pro

Extend all arguments. I thank my opponent for a good debate.
DeeJay0018

Con

DeeJay0018 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
I know that God supposedly asks for your faith, but He's not getting mine until I have due cause to believe in him.

Hitchens' Razor in a nutshell.
Posted by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
It's all right. Thanks for letting me know, DeeJay.
Posted by DeeJay0018 2 years ago
DeeJay0018
I will not be able to continue this debate. I did not plan my time very well. I apologize.
Posted by rextr05 2 years ago
rextr05
Debatepower, Just wondering why you expect proof as you deem acceptable with your "To sum my argument up:
-Prove that there is an omnipotent being,
-And prove that this being is the Christian God,
-All scientifically,
And humans will have valid cause to be believe in the Christian God."

What you have stated contradicts what God asks for in the 1st place, which is faith He exists. So, trying to prove it one way or another is fruitless & I imagine you know this & use that to your advantage. & besides, why try to prove something when it doesn't require proof, it requires faith. & your other mistake here is you assume you have the corner of the definition of 'evidence.' What one believes as evidence for something may not qualify for someone else's evidence, altho it is in essence evidence nonetheless. Who are you to qualify what someone sees as ....... say beauty, as not being so. They use their own evidence for beauty as you use your own. Both are correct for them.
Posted by Beginner 2 years ago
Beginner
Lack of evidence is a double edged blade.
Posted by Esiar 2 years ago
Esiar
Why does it all need to be Scientifically? Con is set up to lose in that case. You can't prove God does or doesn't exist Scientifically.

Not everything needs to be proven Scientifically.

Pro said, "based on lack of evidence.", not, "based on lack of evidence based upon Science".
Posted by Nicoszon_the_Great 2 years ago
Nicoszon_the_Great
Very well put start
Posted by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
The "problem" with all humans is that they all make use of observations that they know to not contradict others to make decisions for their own good. Theists are never free from science.
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 2 years ago
Proving_a_Negative
Don't all humans see evidence in the same way? Don't the basic rules of logic apply to all people equally? You could try to argue that not all humans have access to the scientific research done or complete understand how to use logic.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
I see a lot of room for a strong case from con. The "all humans" bit really opens up a good counter argument which does not fall to sementics.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
debate_powerDeeJay0018Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by maydaykiller 2 years ago
maydaykiller
debate_powerDeeJay0018Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture from Con And Pro had more convincing arguments as he managed to explain his stance on the matter better than Con.
Vote Placed by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
debate_powerDeeJay0018Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct decides the winner, as winners never forfeit. All Con had to do was continue the debate.
Vote Placed by BblackkBbirdd 2 years ago
BblackkBbirdd
debate_powerDeeJay0018Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, shame, it was getting good
Vote Placed by Squirrelnuts57 2 years ago
Squirrelnuts57
debate_powerDeeJay0018Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
debate_powerDeeJay0018Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by RavenDebater 2 years ago
RavenDebater
debate_powerDeeJay0018Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture. It's a shame it was just getting good
Vote Placed by benko12345678 2 years ago
benko12345678
debate_powerDeeJay0018Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: What can I say, con relied on pre-suppositions and assumptions and forfeited at the end. Both had good sources and both used proper grammar.
Vote Placed by LostintheEcho1498 2 years ago
LostintheEcho1498
debate_powerDeeJay0018Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better arguments but lost conduct for leaving.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
debate_powerDeeJay0018Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture