The Instigator
jonnyboy39
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
TheMarketLibertarian
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Atheists:world from nothing or creator?

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 3 votes the winner is...
jonnyboy39
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 800 times Debate No: 102001
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

jonnyboy39

Pro

God is creator of the universe.For a thing to cone into existence there needs to be a cause,nothing comes from nothing.To have a bang you need a "banger" God pulled the trigger and the universe came forth.
Before you ask me "who caused God" ask yourself why am i asking this,God is ,he is eternal.
Things in our universe are winding down,they must of been wound up.
Anything made needs a maker,God is neccessary "In the BEGINNING God",he was there he lives forever he holds all things together.
TheMarketLibertarian

Con

Why? Why does the universe having a cause mean there is an invisible man in the sky who created everything? Why not a giant purple cat named mable? Why not a naked wizard man who lives in a cave? Why not a 3 ft tall toad? Why God? While you're at answering that question- answer me this also- why your God? Why not some other God? Why not Brahma, why not Odin, why not Chaac, why not Waheguru, why not Allah? Why does it have to be your God?
Debate Round No. 1
jonnyboy39

Pro

No purple cat is making the claim.No 3ft tall toad is making a claim.God (Jehovah) of the bible,he is God and creator.
There is no definitive evidence anywhere,please dont get into evidence when discussing "invisible" realms,we simply dont know.
It has to be God of the bible or the christian God,becauce it makes claims about outer realities that we have too test,also inner realities we can affirm.
Yes you are right in a sense saying "invisible man in the sky" for God is spirit.
TheMarketLibertarian

Con

That's not an argument
Debate Round No. 2
jonnyboy39

Pro

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,there you go,thats my stance.
Evolutionists and/or atheists believe in a big bang,wellso do I.I believe when God spoke there was a big bang,the evidence of what we now see,and i put this down to creator God.
Evolutionists,atheists say "it just happened" or even worse "something came from nothing" utter foolishness.I back up my claim in God by my and countless others i know ;inner reality change of heart.The alternative is messy,guessing.
TheMarketLibertarian

Con

See round 1
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: QueenDaisy// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (S&G). Reasons for voting decision: Neither side really presented much of an argument, but rather a series of mutually-contradictory assertions. Con at least provided some kind of refutation by pointing out that there's no reason to think any creator should be the Christian God rather than any other entity. Pro made a bunch of fallacious assertions based on the false premise that contemporary macroscopic causality would have to apply outside of our universe. Pro's grammar was hoorendous. Neither side used any sources or came across as particularly courteous or discourteous.

[*Reason for removal*] S&G is insufficiently explained. The voter is required to do more than simply point out that one side had "hoorendous" grammar " it must be clear how it was problematic and how this made it difficult to understand the given arguments.
************************************************************************
Posted by JimShady 1 year ago
JimShady
"God" does not necessarily mean the Christian God. God is a creator who is omnipotent/omnipresent/omniscient. So God could be a cat named Mable or a 3 ft tall toad, so long as this God meets the God requirements. Pro should've known better than to admit he was talking specifically of the Christian God.

Also, Allah, Brahma, Jesus, and Yahweh are all the same God. They are just different religious interpretations.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
I'd be concerned about using "distracting" as the threshold, because then anyone could basically say that a certain writing style is distracting. If it's difficult to read - and I can see how this is - then it's simpler to objectively assess.
Posted by Hamza_mazin 1 year ago
Hamza_mazin
I will call this a tie, because there was not much of a debate here; on one hand pro just made direct assertions that are not backed by evidence, on the other hand con did not adress the topic of the debate, instead they tried to question the cristian god rather than if the universe needs a creator.
Pro made more S&G mistakes but con did not write anything in round 2 and 3 so it is not a fair comparison.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
I'm not sure why S&G only counts if the argument is difficult to read. Why not if it just distracts from the reading?
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: PowerPikachu21// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments), 1 points to Con (S&G). Reasons for voting decision: Pro makes the claim that the universe came from God. Con tries semantics like "Maybe it wasn't 'God' " or "Maybe it wasn't your God". But Pro points out that the Christian God is the one claiming to have made the Universe. [Also, does it matter if it was a cat or a nine tailed fox? Can't we just call this God?] Anyways, Con failed to put sufficient doubt on God creating the Universe, only questioning if it was God per se. But I have to award S&G points to Con, as Pro had horrid S&G, mainly not putting spaces after commas and periods, making it a bit more tedious to read.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter does assess specific points made by both sides and explains S&G in a manner that explains why an argument was difficult to read (though tediousness alone isn"t a reason to award this point).
************************************************************************
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
It's more a claim of knowledge, like saying you don't know how the universe came to be, or you do know, when the truth is no one knows.
Posted by Hamza_mazin 1 year ago
Hamza_mazin
Sorry my comment was for the con position, also to clear things up I am not the debater here, just a viewer.
Posted by jonnyboy39 1 year ago
jonnyboy39
Your response in section one was questions,i only answered them.
Posted by Hamza_mazin 1 year ago
Hamza_mazin
I think the pro position should try to prove that the universe does not need a creator in order to exist regardless the name/form of said creator (purple cat, naked wizard, etc.). They should not be debating the existence of the christian God specifically.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by princearchitect 1 year ago
princearchitect
jonnyboy39TheMarketLibertarianTied
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: In my estimation, Pro had slightly better conduct than Con in this debate because Con didn't offer anything how something can come from nothing. No one gets a point for better spelling and grammar because Pro & Con had bad spelling and grammar. Pro gets the point for more convincing arguments as Con used the entire debate simply to ask questions. Neither Pro or Con provided any sources so that remains a tie.
Vote Placed by JimShady 1 year ago
JimShady
jonnyboy39TheMarketLibertarianTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: I am a theist, therefore I side with jonnyboy39 (gets no points for that though). Conduct and sources are tied, but TheMarketLibertarian gets S/G because Pro did an awful job with grammar. As for arguments, the title of this debate is "nothing or creator". Pro says God, and God does not imply the Christian God automatically. Con makes numerous assumptions of who this specific God is, which means he basically forfeits saying there IS a creator. Unfortunately Pro does not see this opening and instead defends that Jehovah, is the one true God because he has revealed himself to the masses. A usable but lame argument. However, at least it is one. Con unwittingly concedes there is a creator, not the alternative nothing, and thus loses this debate in my opinion.
Vote Placed by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
jonnyboy39TheMarketLibertarianTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro makes the claim that the universe came from God. Con tries semantics like "Maybe it wasn't 'God' " or "Maybe it wasn't your God". But Pro points out that the Christian God is the one claiming to have made the Universe. [Also, does it matter if it was a cat or a nine tailed fox? Can't we just call this God?] Anyways, Con failed to put sufficient doubt on God creating the Universe, only questioning if it was God per se. But I have to award S&G points to Con, as Pro had horrid S&G, mainly not putting spaces after commas and periods, making it a bit more tedious to read.