The Instigator
ThadeusSmith
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
hayhen13
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Does God Exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
hayhen13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 693 times Debate No: 66477
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

ThadeusSmith

Pro

Does God Exist? I say yes, he does.

A few Rules:
No Ad Hominems (personal attacks)
Be professional
hayhen13

Con

I accept this debate and look forward to it. I wish my opponent the best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1
ThadeusSmith

Pro

In these proofs, I will be pointing out flaws in the old earth theory, and evidences for the young earth theory. In the second round, I will show how these proofs show God.

Proof 1: Moon dust falls on the earth constantly, and also accumulates on the moon. If the Earth and moon are old, than there should be feet of moon dust on the moon. However, there is only 1/8 of an inch of moon dust.

Proof 2: The second law of thermodynamics states that although the total amount of energy remains constant, the amount of usable energy is constantly decreasing. This law can be seen in most everything. Where work is done, energy is expelled. That energy can never again be used. As usable energy decreases, decay increases. Herein lies the problem for evolution. If the natural trend is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible, for it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation.

Proof 3: The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.

Proof 4: The spin rate of the earth is slowing .00002 second per year. If the earth were the billions of years old that the evolutionists say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth.
hayhen13

Con

Thank you for that response

Rebuttal:

You organized your arguments into four different proofs

“Proof 1: Moon dust falls on the earth constantly, and also accumulates on the moon. If the Earth and moon are old, than there should be feet of moon dust on the moon. However, there is only 1/8 of an inch of moon dust.”

I don’t think that moon dust is a good proof that God exists. This dust could have easily been destroyed in the sun’s rays. Or most likely formed clouds since clouds are made of dust and water vapor.

“Proof 2: The second law of thermodynamics states that although the total amount of energy remains constant, the amount of usable energy is constantly decreasing. This law can be seen in most everything. Where work is done, energy is expelled. That energy can never again be used. As usable energy decreases, decay increases. Herein lies the problem for evolution. If the natural trend is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible, for it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation.”

Evolution is a fact. It has been proven multiple times. If you misunderstand it I would recommend Richard Dawkins for he is an expert.

Proof 3: The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.

Again, many possibilities that this could be proven wrong.



Proof 4: The spin rate of the earth is slowing .00002 second per year. If the earth were the billions of years old that the evolutionists say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth.”

I don’t see any evidence. These could all easily be proven wrong by suggesting that none of it moved on a flat rate.

In your next response please cite some sources but Thank you!

Debate Round No. 2
ThadeusSmith

Pro

ThadeusSmith forfeited this round.
hayhen13

Con


My opponent has forfeited and therefore lost. Thank you for this debate!


Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Leo.Messi 1 year ago
Leo.Messi
True-
But then If you cannot factually use a rebuttal
a argument- don't use a rebuttal in your argument at all.
Posted by Atheist-Independent 1 year ago
Atheist-Independent
Incorrect, my famous soccer friend. In this situation a factual rebuttal is an impossibility. Using your own logic neither Pro nor Con's rebuttals are legitimate.
Posted by Leo.Messi 1 year ago
Leo.Messi
Also, all of hayhen13s "rebuttals" where not rebuttals at all,
or they where mere possibility's without evidence...
A rebuttal is meant to discredit the opponent by FACTUALLY showing his proofs to be wrong, not to provide a circumstance in which the opponents arguments may be wrong.
Posted by Leo.Messi 1 year ago
Leo.Messi
Dear hayhen13,
You say religion is detrimental to society?
Without religion there would be no such thing as morality.

Also, I think that evolution is false for these 2 reasons.

a) Evolution can explain where matter comes from,
BUT it cannot explain where information comes from.
(as in our understanding of data when we read words on a page)
Neither does it explain where non-materialistic things come from. (thoughts, philosophy's, laws, or other things that come from our thought process rather than a physical object.)

b) Fossils.
Many evolutionists assume that when they see fossils of an animal that is non-existent but similar to an existing animal it must mean that that animal is an evolutionary ancestor of another creature. However this is circular reasoning, because in order to say that these fossils are an ancestor to some creature you must assume that there where ancestors in the first place! You believe fossils come from ancestors in order to prove that there where ancestors! Very Circular.
Wouldn't it just be easier to make a logical deduction based on your surroundings and conclude that these fossils are species that have gone extinct?
Whenever people use "fossils" to justify macro-evolution I just shake my head at this circular way of reasoning.

c) Other issues.
This is why I personally believe the Bible-It has an explanation for just about everything. God is alive whether you like it or not. You want intellectual laziness? Evolution. Its full of holes.
I would recommend you reading...Defeating Darwinism. Its a great book that deals with most of the issues with evolution. I have read the books of Dawkins and Sagan-I'm not being ignorant. I have seen both sides of the issue. However I think that Creationism is the true answer, no offense to you sir.
Posted by hayhen13 1 year ago
hayhen13
Leo.Messi,
You said, "Personally, I believe God offers more hope and so you should believe in him, however Atheism you are unsure of yourself" You are obviously correct that believing in a fantasy world where a God always loves you and protects you, and when you die, you live on for eternal comfort. This idea of religion obviously is nice to live in and is probably why so many people believe in it. But it is detrimental to our society, everyone believing in these religions will destroy our society so much, there is no point in science or learning, since it is all in a book. We need to choose to dwell in reality, we need to stop being intellectually lazy and do something. Basing the foundation of your life in something just because it offers more hope is very sad and will create a world that is not hopeful at all, almost like The Matrix or something.
Posted by ThadeusSmith 1 year ago
ThadeusSmith
I didn't use Answers in Genesis. That site isn't reliable
Posted by Surrealism 1 year ago
Surrealism
Ah, ThadeusSmith likes to copy off of AnswersInGenesis, eh?

Makes me wish I'd accepted this debate.
Posted by Leo.Messi 1 year ago
Leo.Messi
Wow thadeus, good arguments against evolutional theorys.
But you still have to prove that God exists.

I think what he is trying to say is that there is no 100% positive way to be sure in evolution.
There is also no 100% positive proof for creationism that I know of.
So it really comes down to a choice. what will you believe? God? or Nothing?
Personally, I believe God offers more hope and so you should believe in him, however Atheism you are unsure of yourself, mainly what happens after death.
Good luck to you both, I will be closely watching this debate.
Posted by dtaylor971 1 year ago
dtaylor971
Three out of the four "proofs" pro noted can be refuted by this following text:

"There is no evidence that all of these 'proofs' happened at a flat rate. The deterioration of the spin of the Earth could have been significantly smaller millions of years ago, same as the sun's diameter. Scientists estimate that the Sun will be around for billions of years longer. As for the moon argument, there are a lot of variables to be taken into account. A catastrophic event could have rid the Earth of this dust, the rate could substantially increase or decrease over the years, etc."

As for the Second Law of Thermodynamics... look on the web and you will find an easy rebuttal for that.
Posted by JeremiahZin 1 year ago
JeremiahZin
There is no definite proof of the existence of God, or any divine being(s) for that matter. There is also no definite proof that one does not exist. Since there is nothing but insubstantial proof (such as the bible. It was written by people who claim to be influenced by God, but there is no definite proof that they actually were), it is impossible to form any gnostic argument about God
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
ThadeusSmithhayhen13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by o0jeannie0o 1 year ago
o0jeannie0o
ThadeusSmithhayhen13Tied
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: actually argued