The Instigator
warrior_for_truth
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
InVinoVeritas
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Creation makes the most sense

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 5 votes the winner is...
InVinoVeritas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,245 times Debate No: 28313
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (5)

 

warrior_for_truth

Pro

I would like to debate an atheist on why creation makes the most sense. I've never had an atheist give me any good arguments why believing in creation is foolish and irrational, yet this is what many atheists are saying.

The atheists are always asking theists to provide evidence for their beliefs, yet many atheists are unwilling to provide evidence for what they believe. If the beliefs of atheists are based on science and not faith, then why are atheists so afraid to bear some burden of proof when it comes to the origin of life?

If any atheist has the courage to take me up on this debate then please do so.
InVinoVeritas

Con

Thank you for initiating this debate, warrior_for_truth. I will gladly address the matter at hand from an atheist perspective.

Now let me address your issue regarding burden of proof. Atheism is not a belief; rather it is a disbelief. An atheist's disbelief in God is of the same nature as your disbelief in an invisible hobbit living on planet Neptune. (Let us note that the number of disbeliefs you have far surpasses that of your beliefs.) Do you have to pose arguments to prove all of your disbeliefs? Do you have to prove that an invisible hobbit does not live on Neptune? Of course not, because of burden of proof.

Imagine a world in which we choose to believe in everything until it is proven false; it would be illogical, impractical, and absurd. (Imagine having to believe in the hobbit on Neptune until a scientist proves that this is inaccurate.) That is why, in our actual situation, we choose to believe in nothing and then we develop and accept beliefs based on presented evidence in the world around us. Until you are given evidence, you will not believe in the invisible hobbit living on Neptune; in the same way, an atheist will not believe in a god until sufficient evidence is established for its existence from theists, on whom the burden of proof rests.

Atheists are not "afraid" of a burden of proof, in the same way that you are not "afraid" of a burden of proof when it comes to the hobbit on Neptune. However, atheists tend to recognize that the burden of proof does not rest of them, which, as I just explained, is indeed the case.

Thank you. Let me know if you would like me to provide some clarifications or address any further points.
Debate Round No. 1
warrior_for_truth

Pro

Thank you for taking up the challenge on this debate.

However, I'm not asking you to provide evidence against God, I'm asking you to provide evidence against creation. Whenever an atheist is asked to give evidence against God, the atheist will always reply by saying that it's impossible to disprove Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy, and thus the atheist thinks he is off the hook and has no burden of proof. This is why I'm asking for evidence, not against God, but creation. Let me elaborate:

If I were to walk into a beautiful garden and say, "I believe in leprechauns," I may very well be deluded. I would have to prove that leprechauns exist. However, if I were to walk into a garden and say, "I believe in a gardener," I would no longer have the burden of proof. In the same way, even though I cannot prove God exists, the fact that we have the universe and intelligent life is evidence that there is a creator. So, if atheists are going to argue against creation, they need to provide evidence as to why belief in creation is irrational.

Remember, I'm not asking for any arguments or evidence against God, I'm asking for evidence that shows why creation is foolish and illogical. What evidence do atheists have that the universe and life on earth came into existence without a creator? And if the atheist cannot provide any evidence, then why do so many atheists accuse creationists of being stupid? I think this is sheer arrogance, but if atheists can provide the evidence, I'll be happy to change my beliefs.

Thanks
InVinoVeritas

Con

Thank you for your response.

Well, let us point out what it means to believe in Creationism: "...[A] Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will." [1] Hence, believing in Creationism implies that one believes in a God. The burden of proof is on the theist when it comes to the existence of God (as I explained in the earlier round), and the foundation of Creationism rests on the notion that God exists.

Walking through a garden and saying that a gardener is exists is not analogous to walking through a given location in the world and saying that a God exists. What is a garden? A garden is "A plot of land used for the cultivation of flowers, vegetables, herbs, or fruit." [2] Imbedded in the word is the act of cultivation, an act that requires a cultivator. And a cultivator, in the case of a garden, is called a gardener. In simpler terms, the word “garden” implies the existence of a “gardener,” due to the definition that we ascribed to it; a garden (or, by definition, “a cultivated plot of vegetation”) without a gardener (or, by definition, “a person who cultivates plots of vegetation”) cannot exist, due to the very nature of these words’ meaning.

However, the word “universe” means “[a]ll matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.” [3] This definition, unlike that of garden, does not imply a Creator. This word was not conveniently created with an implied action, like “garden” was; rather, it was created to describe a natural entity. Until the burden of proof of a theist is met, the existence of a “Creator” or “God” will not be embedded in the definition of “universe.”

Why is it illogical to believe in Creationism? Because the burden of proof rests on the Creationist, and it has not been met through the provision of evidence. Believing in something without being able to fulfill its burden of proof (when it rests solely on you) is irrational. As I said in the prior round, imagine a world in which we believed in everything until it is proven false; indeed, this would be a twisted, irrational way of thinking.

---

[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 2
warrior_for_truth

Pro


Thanks for the reply

I think you have made it clear that you are unwilling, or unable, to provide any evidence against creation. Nor are you prepared to provide any evidence that the universe and life on earth came into existence without a creator. The burden of proof rests on the atheist because the proof of creation is demonstrated in the universe and intelligent life. You cannot get life from non-life, nor can you you get intelligence from non-intelligence.

I'm just asking for a tiny shred of evidence. Explain your evidence that shows us that life on earth was the result of non-intelligence. I've given atheists so many chances to present their evidence, but they always refuse. I see creation all around me, so I have all the proof I need. Where is your evidence that life on earth was not designed by a higher intelligence?

I guess the debate is over. Without evidence, your opinion holds no weight. Evidence is what matters.

Thanks for the debate though.

Peace
InVinoVeritas

Con

Unfortunately, my opponent fails to grasp the concept of "burden of proof." I recommend he read this, which describes the fallacy that he is committing: http://www.nizkor.org...

He claims that he "see[s] creation all around" him. Well, then he ought to provide evidence that this essence of "creation" does, indeed, empirically exist. Personally, I have never seen "creation all around me," and I am curious as to what that would even entail.

The opponent can continue to believe in God on the same unfalsifiable basis that I believe in my invisible hobbit on Neptune — but that, by no means, makes our beliefs rational or justified. It is rational to believe in an entity's existence when evidence is presented for its existence; until that happens, the burden of proof is not met and we opt to not believe in the entity's existence.

I cannot disprove the idea that God created the universe — just like my opponent cannot disprove the existence of the invisible hobbit on Neptune. If we were to debate over the existence of the hobbit, I would need to provide evidence or else there would be no rational basis for my opponent to believe in the hobbit; such is the nature of the burden of proof.

In conclusion, Creationists carry the burden of proof and until they meet it, believing in Creationism is illogical. Instead of attempting to meet his burden of proof, the opponent chose to fallaciously pass the burden of proof onto the non-believer, and that is why he lost the debate.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
As a final amendment...

"I'd advise Pro not to entertain an argument without underlying it with a supposedly impregnable evidence that cannot be verified, understood objectively, or be seen by both the reader and his opponent, and to follow the protocol of a debate." :)
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
The last bit of my RFD should read "that CANNOT be verified, understood objectively, and be seen by both the reader and his opponent...."
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
Revised RFD: I'll still maintain that the debate did not necessarily follow what the resolution implied but was structured around the nature of the BOP and its assignment to a debate participant, which ultimately means that the actual debate was arguably not germane or faithful to the original resolution; however, Pro did not fulfill his burden of proof in affirming creationism's validity, easily making Con the victor here. Moreover, Con was certainly correct, and his actions do carry a sense of rectitude, in challenging Pro's requisites: the burden of proof is not tied to some sort of legitimacy that one can attribute to a particular position, but can seen as an imperative assigned to anyone who declares or asserts a statement that cannot be sidelined in face of some "fact" upholding a position. Pro relies only upon his observance of design in the life and bounty of nature to assert the legitimacy of his position, an observance that entails only immaterial considerations, to be blunt, and on the fallacious thinking that any embedded, fixed truth or veracity of a position influenced the conference of the BOP (hence his gardener-designer analogy, which Con thoroughly deconstructed in light of the veritable absence of any connotations implying design, creation, cultivation, guided progression in the word "universe.") I would advise Pro not to entertain an argument without underlying it with a supposedly impregnable evidence that can be verified, understood, and indeed be seen by both the reader and his opponent, and to indeed to follow the protocol of a debate.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Baseballkid, deactivate your account and come back when you know how debating works. Thanks.
Posted by baseballkid 4 years ago
baseballkid
The proof is intelligent life. Pro should win due to con not providing anything more than BOP whining but I am biased so I shall not vote.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
"So what should we believe, that male and female originated from sludge or sea creatures? Now that's what I call silly."

LMAO... You call it silly, I call it evolution.
Posted by errya 4 years ago
errya
I am going to be veeery interested in the outcome of this debate.
Posted by warrior_for_truth 4 years ago
warrior_for_truth
"Stop being silly"

So what should we believe, that male and female originated from sludge or sea creatures? Now that's what I call silly.
Posted by Ramsterlord 4 years ago
Ramsterlord
Creation claims that Eve was made from a rib, the planet is around 7 thousand years old and that we are better than the animals we inhabit the earth with. Stop being silly
Posted by varid17 4 years ago
varid17
Faith and belief will be totally abstract and insubstantial without another abstract thing called, logic! It's not always the science but human mind which seeks reason. Satisfying oneself on the grounds of faith without a sense of reason would be like adding wings to your body and assuming that you can fly. The world of faith and religion is boundless whereas science confines our thoughts based on certain rationales and leads to a satisfactory conclusion.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
warrior_for_truthInVinoVeritasTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a BIG burden of proof which he did not meet. Con has four sources compared to Pro's zero.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
warrior_for_truthInVinoVeritasTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: See revised RFD in the comments section.
Vote Placed by espnfan54 4 years ago
espnfan54
warrior_for_truthInVinoVeritasTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The burden of proof was failed to be met by the instigator.
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
warrior_for_truthInVinoVeritasTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: BOP! No-one got down into any evidence, so it all rests on BOP, and Con's position is quite correct.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
warrior_for_truthInVinoVeritasTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: sicne pro is affirming creationism its on him to provide evidence in favor of creationism, pro did not provide any evidence at all the creationism is the case. Arguments to the con, sources to the con since con was the only one who used them, and i gave conduct to the con to because creationism isnt something only atheists believe in.