The Instigator
TheSkeptic
Pro (for)
Losing
62 Points
The Contender
Mangani
Con (against)
Winning
84 Points

Because there are Nonbelievers, God does not exist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/15/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,447 times Debate No: 5404
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (24)

 

TheSkeptic

Pro

*Clarification purposes*

By "God", I am referring to the Christian god. An omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibelevolent entity. He also loves everyone and wishes for all of us to go to heaven (1 Timothy 2:4). He has other attributes, but these are all that is needed to form this compelling argument.

After starting this debate awhile ago, and seemingly to have lost it, I realized that I was quite unclear in my arguments, and am trying to try my hand at it again.

Having done research, I found out that there already is an argument based on the same premise as mine, the argument from nonbelief. I believe this to be on of the strongest argument for atheism. As such, I will cite the argument and continue from there on.

1. If there is a God, he is perfectly loving.
2. If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur.
3. Reasonable nonbelief occurs.
4. No perfectly loving God exists (from 2 and 3).
5. Hence, there is no God (from 1 and 4).
Mangani

Con

First of all you are trying to box in a debate on Theology based on ONE religion, yet you don't address the theology of that religion factually. I am not a Christian, but I am a "believer", and I will argue my points based on my belief in science, logic, and God as the author and/or judge of both- even if this may diminish my belief in God to a definition equalling that of nature itself. I will address your points, but I will also try to bring up my own as comprehensive as possible.

You say: 1. If there is a God, he is perfectly loving.

-This information is not based on anything. You can't pigeonhole an argument for or against God based on a belief for which you provide no factual references. God is a being referred to in every religion, and not every Theology teaches that God is "perfectly loving". Furthermore, you don't give a definition for what you believe to be "perfectly loving". Indeed science itself is perfect, but not "loving", yet it does not discriminate with it's laws. I propose that if God is the judge and lawmaker of science, and science is perfect, then at least in this argument God is perfect. Because the laws of science do not discriminate and are constant and perfect to our understanding, and only imperfect if we do not understand those laws, we can then logically say that science, and therefore God, are also "perfectly loving", though your term lacks a definition.

You say: 2. If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable non belief does not occur.

-Based on what? Perfect science exists, yet throughout history the perfect laws of science have been questioned, tested, ignored, challenged, and even denounced- let alone "not believed". If this can happen with something like science- which would be the logical interpretation of God's laws if God in fact existed, then why wouldn't this be true for the existence of God himself? Indeed if one aspect of God as described in the Bible were true, that he is an invisible God, then wouldn't this one fact cause disbelief? I believe argument #3 is also properly rebutted in this argument.

You say: 4. No perfectly loving God exists

-Though this argument is logical based on your assessment, I have proved your assessment to be flawed. For one, a "perfectly loving" God is an opinionated description of God, and/or human attributes are being applied here. Love is a feeling, not a state of consciousness, awareness, or existence. If God is "loving" it is because we, as animal humans with animal emotions, interpret the interactions of God as those of a "loving" God. God would not have to be described as "perfectly loving" in order to exist, and the lack of reasonable non-belief is not a pre-requisite for one's existence.

You say: 5. Hence, there is no God

-Though you seem very happy with your arguments, and feel that you have proved your point I feel you have not come even close. All scientific logic teaches me that science, nature, and the universe has laws by which every form of matter must abide by. As a human, my understanding of laws teaches me that laws are in place because they should not be broken, and if they are broken there is a consequence which is in harmony with those laws... in other words science maintains it's balance the same way society does- by having laws and enforcing them, and applying consequences to the disregard of those laws. For example- split an atom and there is a catastrophic chemical and physical reaction. If science, like society, is governed by laws, then it is at least humanly logical to assume that these laws have a governor, author, and judge. If your mind would only allow this judge to be called "science" itself, then so be it. I call the judge, author, and governor of science God because my logic compels me to do so.
Debate Round No. 1
TheSkeptic

Pro

"First of all you are trying to box in a debate on Theology based on ONE religion, yet you don't address the theology of that religion factually. I am not a Christian, but I am a "believer", and I will argue my points based on my belief in science, logic, and God as the author and/or judge of both- even if this may diminish my belief in God to a definition equalling that of nature itself. I will address your points, but I will also try to bring up my own as comprehensive as possible."

It seems my opponent has completely skipped the first part of my opening argument. I specifically stated that when I bring up the word "God", I am referring to the Christian god. I never asserted that this argument applies to every religion, as I am well aware that many other religions believe in a deity that is not all-loving or some of the other "omni's". I have listed common characteristics attributed to God, and shown through passage that he wishes for all of mankind to be saved. (1 Timothy 2:4). As such, the rest of my opponent's argument turns into a big pile of moot. And in fact, I have presented Christianity factually. If my opponent can show how the Christian god is not purported to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, then I would be glad to hear so.

Despite this, I will follow through the 5 points my opponent has rebutted.

1. I have already stated the attribute, omnibenevolence. Benevolence being altruism or kindness.

2. Exactly what does my opponent mean by "perfect science"? Does he mean to say that there are infallible laws of science? Any rational person would know that despite how compelling some theories/laws are, there is always a remote possibility that they may be proven wrong. So in fact no, science is not perfect, though it does have the fabulous built-in-mechanism to be able to correct such errors in due time.

4. Based on Christian doctrines and passages, God is presented to be all-loving. If you have any disputes with this, you should be arguing with the Christian theologians, not me.

5. The laws of science are human inventions, made by us humans to account for universal facts in the universe. This does not mean they can not be broken, but only that if one were to figure out a way to disprove a law, then our understandings in the fields of which that law was relevant will change. Laws of science are analytical statements of the natural world as observed by humans; they are not 100% infallible.

My opponent has missed the entire point of this debate, that it was a debate targeted towards the Christian god and not theology in whole. This is a strong reason to vote for Pro unless he resolves this issue.
Mangani

Con

I specifically stated that when I bring up the word "God", I am referring to the Christian god."

-Besides the fact that this is not your premise, which is "the existence of non-believers nullifies the existence of God", you did not define "Christian", "God", nor did you present any Christian theology, claim to be a Christian theologist, claim to believe in Christian theology, nor can you explain the differences between a "Christian God" and any other "god" which would be considered the one true Creator God- which happens to be the "Christian" God according to their beliefs. Because the "Christian" God is the same God as that of all Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and all their sects, denominations, and schools of thought)(http://www.pbs.org...), and Abraham's God is the same God as the creator God in all religions existing prior to Judaism (Babylon, Egypt, etc.), it is necessary to approach the argument of the existence of God from a practical and realistic point of view rather than from a pigeonholed definition you created within your argument, and from your point of view. This is me arguing against you, and we must do so from our respective points of view, and not from that of others though we must reference others in order to get our points across, and/or lend credibility and scholarly reflection to our ideas.

Christians believe their God was before any other god (Revelation 1: 8), and all other 'gods' are either false gods or lesser creations worshipped as God (Exodus 20:3). Islam teaches this(Sura 112:1-4), so does Judaism(Exodus 20:3). The religion of Babylon, which can be argued is the origin of all other religions, also has one Creator God (http://en.wikipedia.org...), and all others are beneath him and created by him. Egyptian mythology was based on the religion of Babylon, and Egypt is the home of monotheism. Akhenaten assigned the Aten as the one true Creator God, and the Hebrews were integral members of Egyptian society from around the time of Akhenaten to the time of Jesus. Because societies affect each others' religions, and Egypt obviously affected the Hebrews, and Judaism is the root of Christianity it is, from a believer's point of view, safe to say that any discussion regarding the existence of "God" would refer to the one true God believed in by all major religions, and not to any lesser 'gods' whom noone cares whether or not they exist as 'beings' let alone 'gods'.

"I have listed common characteristics attributed to God, and shown through passage that he wishes for all of mankind to be saved. (1 Timothy 2:4)."

-You did so without providing a definition of what it means for you to be saved, nor did you claim to adhere to this belief. Neither have I. How is this verse relevant to our discussion? It's not.

"If my opponent can show how the Christian god is not purported to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, then I would be glad to hear so."

-The attributes of God are not essential to my argument that he exists. They are essential to YOUR argument. YOU argue those points.

"1. I have already stated the attribute, omnibenevolence. Benevolence being altruism or kindness."

-You've stated this, but have not addressed how it relates to your argument. I can't argue against something that is not explained, or a point that is not made. What is your point?

"2. Exactly what does my opponent mean by "perfect science"? "

-Perfect science is the state of the laws of science regardless of our knowledge about them. It is the science that is indisputable, like perfect math (10/10=1). Science that is indisputable would amount to, say, the Earth revolves around the Sun. This is science that is not logically disputable, yet in the past it was disputed by those who had no knowledge of science. It was not only disputed, but it was condemned as heresy. Again, if perfect science can be questioned, not believed, and condemned as heresy so can the existence of God. The fact that non-believers exist does not nullify the existence of God.

"4. Based on Christian doctrines and passages, God is presented to be all-loving. If you have any disputes with this, you should be arguing with the Christian theologians, not me."

-Again, you are making statements and claiming they are Christian doctrines, implying these doctrines are essential to your argument, you also imply you don't believe these doctrines, then you want me to argue with the Christian theologians? They are not the ones claiming God does not exist because non-believers exist. You do not provide a definition, and I am sure you are beyond understanding, of "all-loving". Just as you misunderstood "perfect science"- which I assert are one and the same. To be all loving is to be perfectly fair, balanced, and neutral. Gods laws are natural and scientific and cannot be overridden, broken, altered, or undone.

You provide no argument against your own assertion- that God is all-loving according to Christian theology. I assert- God is all-loving in that his laws, the laws of science and nature, are fair, balanced, neutral, and apply to all creation.

"5. The laws of science are human inventions"

-The laws of science are human DISCOVERIES, not inventions . Newton didn't "invent" the fact that every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. It's common sense, but it's a law of science and he wrote it, but he did not "invent" it- he discovered it and verbalized what he observed. You are absolutely right that the analytical statements are not 100% infallible, but they are written according to observation and not absolute knowledge. The laws of science as known to us would not be 100% at harmony with the laws of science as known to God, but that does not nullify the fact that these laws do exist. Planck's constant, the speed of light, inertia, electromagnetic, chemical, and all physical laws are analytical statements, some with empirical constants. You cannot "break" the speed of light. You can change it's speed by forcing light through different mediums, but the speed is always constant through different mediums, ie. water, glass, quartz, etc. In other words, light will always travel at about 186,282.397 miles per second as long as it is in a vacuum. (http://www.math.ucr.edu...)

"My opponent has missed the entire point of this debate, that it was a debate targeted towards the Christian god and not theology in whole. This is a strong reason to vote for Pro unless he resolves this issue."

-My opponent is unhappy that he was not able to manipulate this debate into the box he wanted it to fit into. The truth is that Theology does not fit into a little box called "Christianity". As a matter of fact, CHRISTIANITY doesn't fit into a little box called "Christianity"! Catholic Theology differs from Baptist, Baptist Theology differs slightly from Pentecostal, Pentecostal Theology differs from Methodist, etc. We are not arguing theology. We are not arguing the correctness of Christian texts, their truthfulness, or whether or not Christianity "teaches" the attributes of God with veracity. What we are debating is whether or not the existence of non-believers negates the existence of God. I assert that even mere ignorance can be cause for non-belief, and therefore the existence of non-believers does not prove the non-existence of ANYTHING, let alone God.
Debate Round No. 2
TheSkeptic

Pro

"Besides the fact that this is not your premise, which is "the existence of non-believers nullifies the existence of God", you did not define "Christian", "God", nor did you present any Christian theology, claim to be a Christian theologist, claim to believe in Christian theology, nor can you explain the differences between a "Christian God" and any other "god" which would be considered the one true Creator God- which happens to be the "Christian" God according to their beliefs."

First of all, I made it evident in my opening argument as to which deity I am specifically mentioning, which is the Christian conception of god. Must I really define everything for my opponent, from Christian to God? It is evident that I am addressing the largest of the three Judeo-Christian religions, Christianity. Christianity already has its own definition of God, and I stated that I will include the stated "omni" attributes as part of the premises in my argument. Even though all three of these religions are similar in many ways, they also differ. Whether or not my argument against the Christian god is relevant to the other two Abrahamic religions is of no importance.

It is pleasing to the eye that my opponent has done his homework and shown how the origins of the Christian god is related to many other religions. However, this does not mean that this debate isn't still about the Christian conception of God. I can't see how my opponent see's this as a difficult thing to understand; I am making an argument against the God in Christianity. I never stated that this would be an argument against the conceptions of god in every other religion, just the one in Christianity.

My opponent has horribly digressed from the initial intention of this debate, and it seems that once again I will have to address his faulty points without even tampering with my opening argument.

"You did so without providing a definition of what it means for you to be saved, nor did you claim to adhere to this belief. Neither have I. How is this verse relevant to our discussion? It's not."

-I does not matter whether or not my opponent and I are believers. This verse is relevant because it shows clearly what the Christian God desires; for all of mankind to be saved, and this would have been a crucial point I will address in my argument.My opponent asks for the definition of being "saved". Though there are different versions of getting "saved", it basically entails liberation from hell. I would expect my opponent to have even this rudimentary knowledge of Christianity at hand.

"The attributes of God are not essential to my argument that he exists. They are essential to YOUR argument. YOU argue those points."

-I do not argue these points, the Christian doctrines and tenets assert these points. I derive an argument from such attributes, AND the fact that the Christian God desires for all of mankind to be saved. This combination of characteristics and desires of the Christian conception of God is crucial to my argument against Christianity. I did not make these attributes, the Christians did.

"You've stated this, but have not addressed how it relates to your argument. I can't argue against something that is not explained, or a point that is not made. What is your point?"

-The point would tie in if my opponent were to read my opening argument. I gave him a clear syllogism, and he has failed to comprehend it. It basically maintains that because reasonable doubters exist, then God must not exist if he were to carry the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence for this would be a contradiction. My opponent has failed thus far to challenge the logic and reasoning of this argument, a discussion that I hoped to expand upon as the debate progresses. However, as evident it seems this won't happen for my opponent's misconstrues.

"Perfect science is the state of the laws of science regardless of our knowledge about them. It is the science that is indisputable, like perfect math (10/10=1). Science that is indisputable would amount to, say, the Earth revolves around the Sun. This is science that is not logically disputable, yet in the past it was disputed by those who had no knowledge of science. It was not only disputed, but it was condemned as heresy. Again, if perfect science can be questioned, not believed, and condemned as heresy so can the existence of God. The fact that non-believers exist does not nullify the existence of God."

-Science is not perfect. There is always a remote possibility that well-placed facts such as the Earth revolves around the sun, could be wrong. The reason why it was not known back then was because science was in its infancy. Science always progresses, and has a built-in-mechanism to correct its theories, laws, etc. This argument is completely off-target when dealing with my argument with God. The Christian god is an entity, with specific attributes and desires to it; science is merely the effort to discover and understand the physical world.

"Again, you are making statements and claiming they are Christian doctrines, implying these doctrines are essential to your argument, you also imply you don't believe these doctrines, then you want me to argue with the Christian theologians? They are not the ones claiming God does not exist because non-believers exist. You do not provide a definition, and I am sure you are beyond understanding, of "all-loving". Just as you misunderstood "perfect science"- which I assert are one and the same. To be all loving is to be perfectly fair, balanced, and neutral. Gods laws are natural and scientific and cannot be overridden, broken, altered, or undone."

Of course I do not believe God is all-loving, for the mere reason that I do not believe he exists. However, Christians commonly teach this from the scripture, and this is part of their tenet. I argue that with this characteristic, and the other attributes, God can not exist from the existence of reasonable doubters.

"God is all-loving in that his laws, the laws of science and nature, are fair, balanced, neutral, and apply to all creation."

-What the mama does my opponent mean? It seems he is saying that laws of science and nature...are ethical? "Fair" means free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice. Science has nothing to do with justice or morality.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

The laws of science are analytical statements we apply to universal facts of the natural world. They are invented by humans to describe things such as gravity. I know that we didn't actually create this phenomenon, and that we actually "discovered" it. All I was pointing out is that a law of science is not perfect.

"My opponent is unhappy that he was not able to manipulate this debate into the box he wanted it to fit into. The truth is that Theology does not fit into a little box called "Christianity". As a matter of fact, CHRISTIANITY doesn't fit into a little box called "Christianity"! Catholic Theology differs from Baptist, Baptist Theology differs slightly from Pentecostal, Pentecostal Theology differs from Methodist, etc. We are not arguing theology. We are not arguing the correctness of Christian texts, their truthfulness, or whether or not Christianity "teaches" the attributes of God with veracity. What we are debating is whether or not the existence of non-believers negates the existence of God."

First of all, I was not attempting to refute Theology. Secondly, though there are many sects of Christianity, the attributes and characteristics I stated in the opening argument hold true to each one, unless my opponent can show otherwise. And in the case he does, I am confident to say that at least one of those sects to apply to this debate, and thus is relevant.

My opponent has not addressed my opening argument at ALL. Instead, he has resorted to attacking my supposed misconstruction of "God" and "Christianity".
Mangani

Con

My opponent states the following: "First of all... Whether or not my argument against the Christian god is relevant to the other two Abrahamic religions is of no importance."

I argue that the concept of the Christian God, and all powerful creator God, is not a Christian monopoly. The argument of God's existence cannot be confined to the "Christian" belief of God because the existence of God in either argument is not dependent on Christianity being correct in their belief. It is not the existence of God in Christian belief that my opponent questions, rather the attributes of this God. My opponent implies that he does not believe Christian Theology to be grounded in truth, yet he insists that I argue from that point of view. This is contradictory in that my opponent is asserting as primal authority that which he seeks to deny- Christian theology. I argue that the premise- the existence of non-believers proves the non-existence of God- is nonsensical. My opponent relies on specific attributes as the fundamentals of this argument- attributes I have not claimed for this God- based on Christianity, yet ignores the Christian belief that God is invisible (Colossians 1:15; I Timothy 1:17; Hebrews 11:27). If God is invisible to the human eye, it would be reasonable to expect some to not believe in his existence.

"I never stated that this would be an argument against the conceptions of god in every other religion, just the one in Christianity."

-Historical, doctrinal, and scriptural facts impose on this debate a realm far wider than the narrow passage in the book of time that is Christianity. Without God there would be no Christianity, not the other way around. We are debating the existence of God, not the veracity of the fundamentals of Christianity.

"I does not matter whether or not my opponent and I are believers. This verse is relevant because it shows clearly what the Christian God desires; for all of mankind to be saved, and this would have been a crucial point I will address in my argument."

-If you would explain this point then maybe you would have a point to argue, but simply stating the point and regurgitating written arguments from non-belief does not make your argument. You are assuming the readers of this debate will automatically go back and research a point you never attempted to make, I never asserted, and I proved to be irrelevant given the arguments that ARE presented surrounding this passage... arguments which happen to be mine since you have made no argument in which this passage was relevant. You assume I will assert the beliefs made in Timothy, and you assume you will argue against a premise I never made, rather you assumed in your own premise- that a perfectly loving God would make himself known to all in the manner which you demand. If you had made that point I could argue against it, but you never made that point. You simply assumed it to be made by your assertion.

"It basically maintains that because reasonable doubters exist, then God must not exist if he were to carry the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence for this would be a contradiction."

-You never made points explaining why an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God cannot exist if reasonable disbelief (you originally said disbelief, not doubt) exists. You expect me, again, to argue against a point that was never made. I don't believe these attributes would be reason for the absence of reasonable non-belief.

"Science is not perfect."

-Our understanding of science is imperfect, but science itself is perfect. It is pretty much irrelevant to my argument other than the fact that the examples I gave cannot be reasonably disbelieved given today's common knowledge, ie. the Earth revolves around the Sun. This, at one point, was fervently denied and condemned as heresy, as I have already stated. If you are to argue that there is a reasonable argument against the Earth revolving around the Sun, that would be an interesting debate. I have already had a "flat Earth" debate...

"The reason why it was not known back then was because science was in its infancy."

-It is pretty audacious and arrogant to claim science was in it's infancy. Technology may have been in it's infancy, but many of today's scientific advances are based on the discoveries of the scientific revolution. I did not claim it was not known that the Earth revolved around the Sun, rather that it was condemned as heresy. This happened to Galileo Galilei, who based his theories and his findings on those of Copernicus, who was born one hundred years prior to Galileo. Galileo did not "invent" this science, rather he sought to prove it.

"Science always progresses, and has a built-in-mechanism to correct its theories, laws, etc."

-Theories and Hypotheses are not laws. Laws of science may be altered over time as written and understood by humans, but these laws never change in the universe. These laws do not change in nature. If we do not know them, or we misunderstand them, it is only because we are ignorant, not because science is not perfect. In my last argument I provided constants which cannot be reasonably challenged given our current level of knowledge. You are not challenging these constants, rather you are attacking the concept of perfect science without even giving an example in which science has been proven imperfect. Put it this way- if it was ever discovered that the calculation for the speed it takes a photon to travel a meter was incorrect, it would be the meter that would be recalculated, not the amount of time it took to travel. The law of the speed of light remains constant.(note: It is currently being argued by some scientists that the speed of light may vary over time, even in a vacuum. It is important to note, however, that the scientists who theorize this also theorize that if this were true- just as the commonly believed constant of c has proven countless other laws, a varying speed of light would prove more theories. These are just theories right now.)

"The Christian god is an entity, with specific attributes and desires to it; science is merely the effort to discover and understand the physical world."

-You claim the Christian God is an entity with specific attributes, yet you claim you don't believe this statement. I don't believe this statement is based on a known truth of the reality of God. I believe it is simple for humans to apply human attributes to God, but I don't believe we can possibly fathom godly "emotions" if a perfect God would have any similar to those of humans. I assert that the possibility that what we consider the emotion "love", in divine terms "love" would imply perfect harmony with all creation. The only way to maintain perfect harmony with all creation is through established laws, ie. the laws of science, laws of nature, etc., and a "perfectly loving" God would adhere to these laws perfectly as their author, judge, and sole perfect interpreter.

"Of course I do not believe God is all-loving, for the mere reason that I do not believe he exists."

-Yet, for this statement to make any sense at all he would have to...

You are citing from people like Schellenberg, and claiming these are "Christian" claims. There are hundreds of Theological colleges throughout the United States and thousands throughout the world, I am sure they all don't teach the same things. I am sure they even teach Atheism as a logical belief. The problem is you are not making the fundamental point Schellenberg ATTEMPTS to make in implying that a "perfectly loving" God would want all to be saved, and therefore he would personally reveal himself to everyone. I have already pointed out several problems with this argument, and did so again with my proposals that "perfect love" would mean "perfect harmony with nature", and therefore adherence to a strict set of fair laws. If you want to discuss salvation, that is another debate.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
"I know, and I don't use quotes for emphasis. You specifically said "basic grammar.""
-You just contradicted yourself, and used the quotes outside the period after using them for emphasis... SMH...
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
Meh, I would definitley like to expand this argument...in another debate :). This happened a long time ago, and I've learned a lot since then (including the truly powerful nature of the argument from non-belief).
Posted by LeafRod 7 years ago
LeafRod
I know, and I don't use quotes for emphasis. You specifically said "basic grammar."

Saying "kids" was just a joke.
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
"dictates that commas and periods always go inside quotation marks."

No true. In fact, our use of quotations is one that is rampant throughout American written vernacular, and is incorrect in it's use altogether which is the use for "emphasis". The "inside the quotes/outside the quotes" rules apply to actual "quotes", and not to the incorrect use of quotes for "emphasis". SO if you want to criticize our PLACEMENT of the quotes, you are no more right than we are. We shouldn't be using quotes for emphasis, period.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Maybe it has to do with the fact that you call everybody "kids." That sounds kind of degrading.
Posted by LeafRod 7 years ago
LeafRod
When did I ever say someone wasn't intelligent? Grammar doesn't mean jack, and I'll be the first to tell you that—I simply pointed it out because you and TheSkeptic did it over and over again.

American style (which is what I assume you would say you're using) dictates that commas and periods always go inside quotation marks. It is certainly not "basic grammar" that the opposite is true.

Chill out.
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
Leafrod, you should really spend more time proving yourself, and less time trying to prove others are less intelligent, or less 'anything' than you. Here is a quote for you and others who lack basic grammar:

"If it is part of the quotation itself, we put it inside the quotation marks, and if it governs the sentence as a whole but not the material being quoted, we put it outside the quotation marks."
Posted by LeafRod 7 years ago
LeafRod
Commas and periods go inside the quotation marks, kids.
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
Lwerd- My use of a parallel with science was to show that belief that God is "all loving" is irrelevant to his actual being. I would use Ecclesiastes to prove this point, as here Solomon states that no matter if you are good or evil, the sun will shine on your back. The sun does not discriminate, and will do what it's nature intends it to do.

With that, there is no action performed by any theorized monotheistic god that can be considered not "all loving". Atheists contend that God is not "all loving" because evil exists, however, belief in evil requires the belief in God, though not vice versa.

Furthermore, the term "all loving" is taken out of context. In nearly every verse in the bible that suggests God is all loving, it is followed by a verse demonstrating God's wrath, jealousy, and destructive nature. Science is just as indiscriminate, only we don't personify science. So my parallel was to show that regardless of any "belief", or the existence of "non-believers", what is IS no matter what.

Pro did not prove his syllogism, he merely stated it in different ways. If you can show how he proved it I'd be more than open to listening. You said this:

"Mangani proves that God can exist even with non-believers, but that argument doesn't work if you accept Skeptic's requirements that God is all-loving"

The question shouldn't be whether or not YOU accept whether or not God is all loving, rather whether or not a God who is NOT all loving can exist. Love is a human emotion. Humans equate balance, in Christianity, as love. Therefore your statement is a contradiction. This debate was not about the Christian God, rather the notion that the existence of non-believers negates the existence of "any" god.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
So overall there really is no way to accurately judge this debate. Mangani proves that God can exist even with non-believers, but that argument doesn't work if you accept Skeptic's requirements that God is all-loving. Mangani explains why we should not necessarily accept that God is all-loving, and while his argument is compelling, it doesn't negate the fact that most proponents of God claim that God IS all-loving and that's what Skeptic's syllogism disproves (an all-loving God means no non-believers). So truth be told, I didn't even vote on this debate. I know debates aren't typically encouraged to be continued in the comments section, but I think if either side has a good point to bring up, I'd listen and consider voting in the future. As of now, all points are a tie.
24 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by zabrak 7 years ago
zabrak
TheSkepticManganiTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by snelld7 7 years ago
snelld7
TheSkepticManganiTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
TheSkepticManganiTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
TheSkepticManganiTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by headphonegut 7 years ago
headphonegut
TheSkepticManganiTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
TheSkepticManganiTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by EinShtoin 7 years ago
EinShtoin
TheSkepticManganiTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
TheSkepticManganiTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by DictatorIsaac 7 years ago
DictatorIsaac
TheSkepticManganiTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Diebold 8 years ago
Diebold
TheSkepticManganiTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00