The Instigator
Seeksecularism
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Christian_Debater
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Does God Exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Seeksecularism
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 476 times Debate No: 53857
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

Seeksecularism

Con

First round will be acceptance
Second round will be opening statements
Third round will be first rebuttal
Fourth round will be second rebuttal and closing statements

Defintion of God: the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator and sustainer of the universe as described in the Bible- I'll allow my opponent to choose which version of the bible to reference.

It is important to note that since this topic is in the form of a question, both sides will have a burden of proof.
Christian_Debater

Pro

I will accept this debate on the side that God does exist.

In terms of Bible reference, I shall use the King James Version 1611.

Moreover, I will be citing and referring to other religions beyond Christianity.

I thank you again for this debate. However, I would not expect my arguments to be too quick as I am busy currently but I shall do my best to answer within the allotted time.
Debate Round No. 1
Seeksecularism

Con

I want to start off by thanking my opponent for accepting this debate. I look forward to our interactions.

I'll begin answering my burden of proof by leading off with the evidential problem of suffering:

1) If God exists, gratuitous suffering does not exist.
2) Gratuitous suffering does exist
3) Therefore, God does not exist

The above argument is logically valid via Modus tollens, and the conclusion will necessarily follow if both premises are true.

Premise 1: This premise is true given the definition of God mentioned in round 1. I can explicitly demonstrate this as follows:

omnipotence: unlimited power to act
omniscience: unlimited knowledge
omnibenevolence: wholly good

An omnipotent being would have the power to eliminate or prevent any gratuitous suffering, otherwise he would not have unlimited power to act.
An omniscience being would know of any gratuitous suffering, otherwise he would not have unlimited knowledge.
An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent or eliminate any gratuitous suffering, otherwise he would not be wholly good.

I believe I've demonstrated that premise 1 is definitionaly true and will be uncontroversial. Should a deity lack any of the 3 properties above, then the conclusion of my argument would not follow, but that being would also not be the greatest conceivable being, not be worthy of worship, nor be God as defined in round 1 and would therefore be irrelevant to this debate.

Premise 2: This seems true as just an obvious fact about reality. Because this is an evidential argument, all that has to be shown is that this premise is more probably true then false to conclude that God probably does not exist. All that is necessary for God to not exist is one instance of gratuitous suffering as that would call into question either God's omniscience, omnipotence, or omnibenevolence. So why think it's more probably true then not?
1) Child suffering: all one needs to do is walk down the ICU of any children's hospital or cancer treatment center to see that children needlessly suffering and die agonizing deaths every day across the globe. Any trip to a 3rd world country will show children needlessly suffering by starvation, dying agonizing deaths to completely curable diseases, and dying in childbirth and infancy due to intolerable living conditions.
2) Natural disasters: Events such as tsunamis, earthquakes, and diseases are not limited to third world countries. These are natural events that would be under an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being's control. But it is not obvious why this being would inflict such seemingly needless suffering on its creations. Natural disasters actually seem arbitrary, and do not discriminate how, who, when, or where they inflict suffering.
3) Animal (non-human) suffering. For billions of years, biological organisms have been reproducing and dying due to the process of natural selection. The majority of species have gone extinct in the history of life on this planet and those that still remain still suffering immensely in nature today due to competition with one another and the struggle for survival in their natural habitats.

All three of these lines of evidence give us a powerful inductive case that gratuitous suffering is vastly more probable to exist then not. Giving us strong reason to believe that premise 2 is true and that it necessarily follows that god does not exist.

In addition, I'd like to give an inference to the best explanation case against the existence of God. What this means is a list of facts about reality and conclude that the thesis "God does not exist" better explains the facts of reality than the thesis "God does exist." Thus by Occam's Razor it is more reasonable to believe that God does not exist. Please examine the following facts:

1) If God existed, we'd expect religious beliefs to be universal, meaning they were static over geography and time. Though we observe religious beliefs to vary geographically and adapt over time. There are many competing and contradictory religions and god's Hiddenness is still a problem.
2) If God existed, we'd expect religious doctrinal stability. Holy books would be eternal and unchanging unlike how scripture dealing with slavery and treatment of women has been affected by social progress and many unpleasant passages are ignored or explained away.
3) If God existed, we'd expect moral teachings to be transcendent and progressive across the globe. Instead we find inconsistent and tribal moral teachings geographically.
4) If God existed, we'd expect sacred texts to give us accurate and specific information about the nature of reality, not scattered and vague information that is explained by metaphor.
5) If God existed, we'd expect biological forms to be designed ie simple and efficient, not complex and inefficient, nor would they suffer from the twists and turns of evolution.
6) If God existed, we'd expect to find mind and body to be separate (dualism), and not have overwhelming evidence for monism and physicalism. Effecting your brain physically should not also effect your mind, but it does.
7) If God existed, you'd expect no evil, not the apparent random evil we observe.
8) If God existed, you'd expect the cosmos to be perfect, and not the random chaotic mess that we observe nor the appearance that life on earth is insignificant as far as the cosmos is concerned.

Now I have no doubt that a theist could give a defense for each an every one of these facts about reality. My argument is that by creating auxiliary hypothesis to explain away all these tensions, it makes the belief that "God exists" sufficiently ad hoc and therefore less likely to be true. And thus by Occam's Razor, the more preferable position would be that "God does not exist," as the inference to the best explanation of the facts we encounter in reality.

In anticipation of my opponents rebuttals and in the interests of saving time and space, if my opponent wishes to object to my arguments with the concept of Free Will, I'd only ask that he clearly define what he means by Free Will. Out of respect for my opponent, I do not wish to attack positions of Free Will that he does not present. Thanks for your time, and I look forward to your response.
Christian_Debater

Pro

Christian_Debater forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Seeksecularism

Con

Seeksecularism forfeited this round.
Christian_Debater

Pro

Christian_Debater forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Seeksecularism

Con

Seeksecularism forfeited this round.
Christian_Debater

Pro

Christian_Debater forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Christian_Debater 2 years ago
Christian_Debater
Sagey, just vote on our other debate.

Moreover, you've still yet to answer my questions on Evolution =/.
Posted by Christian_Debater 2 years ago
Christian_Debater
Oh alright sounds good.

Also congrats on jiu-jitsu. Personally, I don't like it I have a huge problem with it [it's because I like striking, and Jiujitsu is basically a 1 hit KO like wrestling].

But alright. I'll set it up, just repost what you put here, and we'll start over [its a good thing too because I have lots more still to do today >__>].

Thanks again and God bless you man.
Posted by Seeksecularism 2 years ago
Seeksecularism
Why don't we just start the debate over then. I'm perfectly ok with that if you are and we can have longer time between rounds this time. Why don't you set it up, so you can have as much time as you feel sufficient. I took the week off from work, so my only time commitment is jiu jitsu.
Posted by Christian_Debater 2 years ago
Christian_Debater
Hey im going to post in the comments my response. Sorry for the delay, Im going to have to walk my fiance to the bus stop, go to the grocery store, train quickly, and then I'm going to post my response.

Sorry again, I usually don't miss rounds and this is a great topic for me [the more topics like this, the more information I acquire to use.].
Posted by Christian_Debater 2 years ago
Christian_Debater
24hrs is too short for me im sorry =/ so can I post my argument in the comment section and you'll respond? Or do you want to redo the whole debate?
Posted by Christian_Debater 2 years ago
Christian_Debater
Sorry it happened again. Do you mind waiting and let me just post my argument in the comment section today?
Posted by Seeksecularism 2 years ago
Seeksecularism
I have no issue conceding this round. I certainly understand other time commitments.
Posted by Christian_Debater 2 years ago
Christian_Debater
My apologies, I have been busy. I will respond to your questions though. If you skip your round, it'd be appreciated. If not it is okay. Just if you add ontop of your original arguments, just please give me the benefit of the doubt if I run out of Characters.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
SeeksecularismChristian_DebaterTied
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: Cannot let this debate go as a tie, since Pro pulled the plug on it. I should give Con a conduct point for that, but held that back, as Con was the only one who bothered to give an argument I guess I'll have to hang that vote on Con. Think it bad manners to drop out of a debate.