The Instigator
Valladarex
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
handywandy
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Deism is more Reasonable than any Revealed Religion

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 1 vote the winner is...
Valladarex
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/19/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,971 times Debate No: 33889
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Valladarex

Pro

This will be a debate on whether or not Deism is more reasonable than the revealed religion of Con's choice.
A revealed religion is a religion founded primarily on the revelations of God to humankind. These include Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and more.

The burden of proof will be on Con, as Con will be the one attempting to prove that their religion is true, and I will be negating their claims.

I will allow Con to start off the first round with his or her points.

Rules:

-No trolling
-Only accept if you are willing to debate all the way through. I really don't want to wait 3 days for a round forfeit.


I hope for a fun and fair debate!
handywandy

Con

I accept this debate and thank my opponent for the opportunity.

My personal religion is Christianity, however most of my arguments will be universal, and could be used by a member of most religions.

I will begin by quoting the Cosmological argument. This argument, consists of two main parts. First, it proves that there is indeed "a creator" which is agreed upon by my opponent (a deist) and myself, however I will quote it below as it leads into the second part of the argument.

• Something exists. (the universe)
• You do not get something from nothing. (1st law of thermodynamics/law of conservation of mass)
• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
• Science and philosophy have disproved the concept of an eternal universe.
a.It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise it wouldn't be infinite).
b.The universe cannot be infinitely old or all usable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

Now, the second part of the Cosmological argument lists things that humans can infer about this creator based upon what he created.

• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (He would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it)
• He must be eternal (self-existent).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.

Now, the last inference is where things get good!!

• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.

Lets focus on that part. The Creator DELIBERATELY created everything in our universe, which in turn means that he did so for some purpose.

The Kalam Cosmological argument, as popularized by William Lane Craig, can be summarized as follows:
(P1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
(P2) The universe began to exist;
(C) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Based on these popular arguments, I move to state that there is a Creator of our universe, and He created it for some specific reason. And since He has a reason for creating our universe, I DO NOT find it "reasonable" in any sense of the word to state (as diests do) that our Creator created us, and then simply removed himself to late nature take over. He created us for a reason, and he is involved in our every day lives to fulfill that reason.
Debate Round No. 1
Valladarex

Pro

The Existence of God

Although I think the Cosmological argument has some fair points, others are based on assumptions. I will point these out.

"• Something exists. (the universe)"

I accept this premise.


"• You do not get something from nothing. (1st law of thermodynamics/law of conservation of mass)

• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists."

I don't know if we know enough about the start of the universe to be certain that the laws that govern the universe today don't break down, including the laws of thermodynamics/law of conservation of mass, but I'll go along with this premise.


"• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
• Science and philosophy have disproved the concept of an eternal universe.
a.It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise it wouldn't be infinite)."

I disagree that these are the only two options. How do we know that something not eternal created the universe, and something eternal created that non-eternal entity? How do we know that there isn't more than one creator of the universe? How do we know that the entity that created the universe didn't cease to exist once the universe came into being? All of these other options show that we can't just assume the creator of the universe is eternal.

"b.The universe cannot be infinitely old or all usable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists."

I accept that a creator of the universe exists and that the universe isn't infinitely old.

God Characteristic Inferences

I'd like to first state that all of these inferences are not proven by the nature of the universe. They may seem to be, but these characteristics are not required by God in order for the creation of the universe to happen.

"• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space)."

I don't know whether the creator of the universe is beyond scientific understanding, simply because he/it created time and space. For example, we may learn in a few decades how something could come out of nothing, given certain properties of the creator. God would cease to be beyond scientific understanding at that point.


"• He must be powerful (He would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it)"

Powerful is an interesting attribute. There are many different types of powers. In the Christian sense, I don't think that having the power to create a universe means that the entity also has the power to influence the universe once created. That would be assuming the creator has more powers than the specific power of creating a universe. We simply do not know enough about this entity to assume he has this power, let alone the power to do absolutely anything non-paradoxical.


"• He must be eternal (self-existent)."

As explained above, this isn't necessarily true.


"• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it)."

This isn't necessarily true, because we don't know what happened to this entity once the universe was created. God may very well have ceased to exist at the moment of creation. Also, God may have been able to create the universe, but was unable interact with it after. Being able to exist without space doesn't mean he can exist inside it. Therefore, being present everywhere isn't an attribute we could be certain that this God has.


"• He must be timeless (He created time)."

I think this goes along with being eternal, but won't don't know about what existed before the big bang. For example, there may have been a God that created a universe before our own, but then that one was ended. Then our creator created this universe, which started our universe's time. But, did time not exist in that prior universe?

Time is a very complex idea. We simply don't know enough about the nature of reality to be sure that time never existed before our universe. In turn, our creator may not be timeless. For all we know, his time might have ended at the conception of the universe.


"• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical."

God could have been materialistic before the creation of our universe. Although space and matter did not exist in our universe, we don't know if God existed in a place that permitted him to be made of matter. This pre-universe place is entirely unknown to us, and we don't even know if it exists at all. But the point is, we can't assume that God is immaterial because he created the universe.


"• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being."

Please back this statement up. I disagree that complex things can only come from complex things. Also, there is evidence on Earth that higher intelligence can come from lesser intelligence. Not even including the geniuses that came from normal intelligence parents, we have fossil evidence that demonstrates that humanity evolved from less intelligent primates. This could all be done through known scientific processes, and divine intervention was not necessary to make this evolution happen. Through science and the study of evolution, we can trace our family tree back hundreds of millions of years to a time where cognitive beings did not exist. This demonstrates that cognitive beings don't necessarily come from cognitive beings.

If any of these characteristics are not proven to be true, then we cannot assume that God has them. As a result, Deism is the most reasonable standpoint, as it doesn't claim to know more about God than can be proven. Deism only affirms that a creator(s) of the universe existed, and that the creator(s) is most likely impersonal. Nothing else.

Deliberate Creation

"• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything."

We don't know if he deliberately created everything. There are many different ways the universe could have started by this entity. The universe might have been a byproduct of some unintentional action by the entity. The entity might have "died" and the universe resulted from this death. God might just have an attribute which makes him spontaneously create universes, outside of his control. God might not even be a thinking entity. He could be just some type of property of existence before the universe that has the power to create the universe under certain circumstances.

"Lets focus on that part. The Creator DELIBERATELY created everything in our universe, which in turn means that he did so for some purpose."

Even if it was true that he deliberately created the universe, this in no way means that he has human-like goals and desires. In fact, I think it makes more sense for God to not have the human-like characteristics the Bible gives god. I will get into this next round.

"And since He has a reason for creating our universe, I DO NOT find it "reasonable" in any sense of the word to state (as diests do) that our Creator created us, and then simply removed himself to late nature take over. He created us for a reason, and he is involved in our every day lives to fulfill that reason."

We have no way of knowing what purposes a God would have in creating a universe. This assumption that he did it to interfere with human activities must be backed by strong evidence. We don't know if he created the universe to specifically observe humanity. You stated no evidence that points toward him being involved in our everyday lives to fulfill this unknown reason.

As I ran out of space, I will be arguing that the Christian God is not a reasonable one to believe in next round.

Back to you.

handywandy

Con

My opponent clearly lives under the premise that everything that has been stated in the past is either false or incomplete, with the remarkable justification of "one day it could be proved false when we know more". Living under this believe one could say "Pi actually does have a last decimal point, we just don't know enough yet to prove otherwise", or "What humans see every day is actually an illusion and not reality, we just can't prove it yet."

He also doesn't understand the simple facts of science. I'll provide the background for this argument by giving two scientific definitions:

Theory- "summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it." [1]

Law- "A law generalizes a body of observations...Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'." [1]

(Notice that a Law of science does not, and is not required to, give a reason or a "why" of how that law works, rather it simply describes how things work in our universe.)

At one point my opponent even doubts the accuracy of Antoine Lavoisier's Law of Conservation of Mass. He says "we may learn in a few decades how something could come out of nothing".

I will grant my opponent that indeed this is a possibility, however, if he uses an argument with such baseless doubt then he in turn is saying he doubts all scientific laws that we live by today. If my opponent wishes to believe that he is somehow in possession of knowledge greater than the likes of Newton, Lavoisier, and Einstein, then he is free to that belief, but we all know better than that.

In the end, his baseless "argument" against the Cosmological argument doesn't even matter when it comes to this debate. This is because there is only one being that has ever walked the face of planet Earth who was successful in defeating death, Jesus Christ. When Jesus was crucified, his body was left in a tomb under guard every hour of every day. Three days after his crucifixion, the body of Jesus Christ was no longer in the tomb where he was originally laid, and he soon made contact with the beloved disciple John and many others to follow, proving that he was the flesh of God sent to earth. This miracle proves that our creator didn't "cease to exist" after he created the Universe, and his teachings prove without a doubt that he is not an "impersonal" creator.

http://chemistry.about.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
Valladarex

Pro

Laws of the Universe

"My opponent clearly lives under the premise that everything that has been stated in the past is either false or incomplete, with the remarkable justification of "one day it could be proved false when we know more". Living under this believe one could say "Pi actually does have a last decimal point, we just don't know enough yet to prove otherwise", or "What humans see every day is actually an illusion and not reality, we just can't prove it yet.""

I'm not sure why you base the majority of this second round on this statement. I clearly said "I'll go along with this premise."


"He also doesn't understand the simple facts of science. I'll provide the background for this argument by giving two scientific definitions.... it simply describes how things work in our universe.)"

I never contested the meanings of laws and theories. None of what I said goes against "the simple facts of science."

"At one point my opponent even doubts the accuracy of Antoine Lavoisier's Law of Conservation of Mass. He says "we may learn in a few decades how something could come out of nothing"."

Again, I accepted this premise that the Law of Conservation is true, so I don't really need to get into details. But, just to be clear, I'll explain what I meant.

A number of scientists, including Steven Hawking, have stated that the laws that govern the universe could break down at the point of the big bang. Hawking states, "At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang. "(1)

Although I'm not sure about whether they break down or not, I wouldn't let that get in the way of me accepting the premise. Also, you made a strong claim that god is simply unknowable to science. I said "I don't know whether the creator of the universe is beyond scientific understanding, simply because he/it created time and space." This was the only reason I brought up the idea that we may find, in the future, evidence to discover what exactly created the universe. I didn't claim that we definitely or even probably will though.

"I will grant my opponent that indeed this is a possibility, however, if he uses an argument with such baseless doubt then he in turn is saying he doubts all scientific laws that we live by today. If my opponent wishes to believe that he is somehow in possession of knowledge greater than the likes of Newton, Lavoisier, and Einstein, then he is free to that belief, but we all know better than that. "

I never claimed to have possession of knowledge greater than those scientists. I never claimed that the laws the govern the universe break down at the start of the big bang either. I accepted the premise.

Characteristics of God

Outside of a quasi-defense of the inference that God is supernatural, you have not backed any of your other inferences of the characteristics of God. Therefore, I must assume you conceded to my points.

Personal God Claims

"In the end, his baseless "argument" against the Cosmological argument doesn't even matter when it comes to this debate. This is because there is only one being that has ever walked the face of planet Earth who was successful in defeating death, Jesus Christ. When Jesus was crucified, his body was left in a tomb under guard every hour of every day. Three days after his crucifixion, the body of Jesus Christ was no longer in the tomb where he was originally laid, and he soon made contact with the beloved disciple John and many others to follow, proving that he was the flesh of God sent to earth. This miracle proves that our creator didn't "cease to exist" after he created the Universe, and his teachings prove without a doubt that he is not an "impersonal" creator."

Without even backing your prior claim that God is active in our daily lives, you state more claims not backed by any given evidence. These claims that Jesus did supernatural things are unfounded, and I assume that your only source of information on this is the bible.

The Christian God

As I said last round, I believe the Christian God is not a reasonable one to believe in. This version of God is dependent on the Bible, which is an unreliable sources of information.

There are many examples of errors in the Bible, including those of Genesis. For one thing, as science has shown, the Universe came into being as a result of the Big Bang, which resulted in the creation of Earth after billions of years. This is very different than the Bible's idea of a 7 day creation period. (2)

Other scientific fallacies include:

-The Earth was made before the sun (Genesis 1:1, 1:16)

-Plants existed before the sun (Genesis 1:11)

-A bat is a bird (Leviticus 11:13-19, KJV)

-The firmament is claimed to be a solid roof over the world. (Genesis 1:6-8 KJV)

-The mustard seed is the smallest seed (Matthew 13:32)

-All streams flow into the sea (Ecclesiastes 1:7)

-Man is made from dust (Genesis 2:7)

-There was an ark that carried every animal (Genesis 7:8)

-A flood covered over all the mountain tops (Genesis 7:19-20)

As you can see, this book is clearly not the divine word of God, as it includes many fallacies about the world. If God meant for this to be a book that explained reality to all people, then it would have been scientifically accurate.

So far, there has been no evidence that a personal God is the most reasonable idea of God. My opponent has stated that we can infer various characteristics of God, but I have shown that these are not necessarily true. He points to Jesus as evidence that a personal God exists, but gives no evidence that shows that the supernatural stories of Jesus are accurate. He has given no evidence that miracles exist, or that God is active in our daily lives.

Because of this, Deism is the most reasonable belief, as it is the default position to those who believe the Universe came from a creator. It claims nothing that isn't backed by evidence or reasonable inferences.

1. http://www.hawking.org.uk...

2. http://www.biblegateway.com... (for all bible verses)

handywandy

Con

My opponent has incorrectly assumed that since I'm a Christian, the Bible is my only evidence for Jesus and his supernatural acts. I will devote this round of argument to proofs of the the supernatural acts performed by our personal God outside of the Bible.

Tacitus

"Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament." Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .

What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.

But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? Historian's suggests that Tacitus is here "bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave." " [1]



Flavius Josephus

Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus.

"Josephus was an eyewitness to history, and his writings are considered authoritative. These texts are key to understanding a pivotal point in world history, which has tragic repercussions even to this day."

Josephus writes.. "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has not disappeared." [2]











http://ancienthistory.about.com...

http://www.sacred-texts.com...


http://www.probe.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Valladarex

Pro

The Evidence of the Supernatural

"My opponent has incorrectly assumed that since I'm a Christian, the Bible is my only evidence for Jesus and his supernatural acts. I will devote this round of argument to proofs of the the supernatural acts performed by our personal God outside of the Bible. "

To begin, neither Tacitus nor Josephus were even born by the time Jesus was killed on the cross. As a result, the only information they would have on the event is hearsay. Hearsay is not proof that supernatural acts were performed by a personal God, and it doesn't prove that the Bible is completely accurate.


Tacitus

"Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament." Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .

"What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus."

This confirms that it was said that a man named Jesus suffered an extreme penalty. This does nothing to prove that anything supernatural occurred. Also, he has heard this from Christians themselves, which have already believed the story before he learned about it. Tacitus is not a reliable source for determining whether or not Jesus did supernatural things. He couldn't even be used to confirm if the Bible is accurate and true, because he lived after the time these events happened.

"But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? Historian's suggests that Tacitus is here "bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave." " [1]

Tacitus gives us no indication that Jesus rose from the grave. Even if he did, he would not be a reliable source, as he was not there to see it. He only had the testimony of other people to give him information on these stories. This testimony is not necessarily true.



Flavius Josephus

""Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his
Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus.

"Josephus was an eyewitness to history, and his writings are considered authoritative. These texts are key to understanding a pivotal point in world history, which has tragic repercussions even to this day."

Josephus writes.. "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has not disappeared." [2]""

Josephus was an eyewitness to history, just like the majority of people that ever lived. What is being attempted here is to prove that the bible is true. Just like Tacitus, Josephus was not alive during Jesus' life and could not have evidence that he rose from the grave.

I also don't see how it is a remarkable reference to Jesus outside the bible. Being born decades after Jesus' supposed resurrection, there would have been ample amount of time for this story of Jesus to be passed on by people. The stories he writes about prove nothing other than that the story of Christ was getting more popular during that time. This doesn't prove that the bible is true and accurate, and it certainly doesn't prove anything supernatural occurred.

Former Rebuttals

Many of my rebuttals still remain uncontested. All of the inferences of God from the cosmological argument have been shown to be unfounded and are not provable. All references to miracles and supernatural events have not been backed by any evidence. The bible has been shown to be unreliable, as there are many scientific fallacies in the book.

Conclusion

Because there has been no evidence that Christianity or other revealed religions are true, Deism is a far more reasonable belief. Unlike Christianity, Deism isn't dependent on unproven supernatural occurrences on Earth. Deism doesn't require one to believe in any religious text or prophet, and only calls for people to use their reasoning and observations to come to the conclusion that there is some type of creator of the universe.

The great benefits of being a Deist is that you are able to believe in what you think is most reasonable. There is no ancient moral code that Deists must believe in. Deists are free to believe in any scientific advancements that arise in the future, and are able to adapt to changing times. All of this allows for a much more reasonable world view and way of life, when compared to a belief in a revealed religion.

I hope I have shown that there are no convincing reasons to believe in a revealed religion, and Deism is therefore the more reasonable belief.

Vote Pro.

handywandy

Con

I have given my best arguemnt possible. I have given clear historical proof of the life of Jesus Christ and his lesson's, but my opponent has argued every single possible proof i have given. No matter what proof i give, my opponent believes truly that his belief is better, he belives that his historical understanding is greater than that of the proven historical minds that have granted our generation with knowledge of our past. There is no further evidence I can provide you all with. All I can say is vote Con because I have truly proved that Deism is a truly unreasonable belief. Thanks again to my opponent for a great debate.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
I found Con's performance problematic. He opened by a defense of the Cosmological Argument, when a Creator was essentially granted in this debate. As part of that, he attempted to leverage a sentient creator out of the CA. Pro rebutted all of these points, and Con proceeded to drop them thereafter. They didn't really support the "revelation" aspect of the motion, anyway.

Con also completely dropped the "Unreliable Bible" argument of Pro, which was surprising. Not that I generally accept all those rebuttals, but that Con didn't bother to try to rebut was surprising.

Instead, he moved on to trying to establish the historicity of Jesus' resurrection, using one source that said nothing about them, and another that is known to be written long after the fact. He did nothing to establish the "Revealed" part of his religion. Unsurprisingly, the points on historicity were quickly rebutted, and Con dropped his opportunity for final rebuttals by retreating into a whine about his opponent "argu[ing] every single possible proof [he gave]", as though that was a bad thing. Was he expecting something else from a debate?

Arguments to Pro for the above reasons. Sourcing was present and sufficient from both sides. Tempted to give S&G to Pro, but I don't think it's quite bad enough on Con's part, I suspect the ones I noticed just happened to stand out to me. Conduct is equal, as well, though Con flirted with the line a few times IMHO, and his closing statement seemed to whine that a debate had happened.
Posted by handywandy 4 years ago
handywandy
I apologize to my opponent, I accidentally hit submit argument rather than make changes and I forgot to enter my sources.

http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...

ALSO, in my last argument I stated "and then simply removed himself to *late* nature take over"
and late should be changed to "let".

I apologize and look forward to my opponents argument!
Posted by TheDarkMuffin 4 years ago
TheDarkMuffin
I really appreciate this topic. It seems like Deism is commonly a forgotten religion when people discuss religions in general. :)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
ValladarexhandywandyTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.