The Instigator
RBaker
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
THEBOMB
Con (against)
Winning
4 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...
THEBOMB
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,179 times Debate No: 20322
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

RBaker

Pro

I will present in my argument that only the Christian position, as described in the Bible, supplies the necessary foundation for the pre-conditions of understanding the nature of reality, true knowledge, and human ethics. Christianity asserts that the uniformity, complexity and physical laws of nature as well as the objective special revelation of God in Scripture demonstrates the unavoidable necessity and certainty of the existence of the only true and living God.
The Christian worldview gives answers to the meaning and purpose of life - makes sense out of life - asserts that there is a supernatural existence beyond the five senses where God, the sovereign Creator and Lord of the universe providentially sustains all things.
Moreover, the Atheist has no foundation by which he can justify his worldview that there is no God. Indeed, the Atheist has no ultimate standard/ground, if he is consistent, by which he can know any fact. The Atheist's argument is unsuccessful, arbitrary, inconsistent and without logical support. God exists or nothing exists.
The Christian position is the only rational position to hold. God has sufficiently revealed in Scripture, directly or indirectly, answers to all of man's basic questions – How did the universe come into being? Why did the universe come into existence? Why am I here? What is my purpose? Is this all there is? What happens after death? How can I escape the judgment of a holy God? etc.
The Atheist functions in this world, irrationally, as a walking contradiction. He denies the existence of God with his mouth yet cannot avoid operating, in his life, according to the Christian worldview all the while suppressing the knowledge of the Sovereign Lord. The Naturalistic Atheist cannot give a rational explanation of the origin of the existence of anything, especially life, most especially human life.
The ultimate standard by which I will advance my argument will be the objective Word of God. Not that all answers will be given citing chapter and verse, although I will present God's verdict on the unbeliever's philosophy of life. But God has ordained that only those who have been given a new heart and a new mind through the redemption of Christ and regeneration of the Holy Spirit possess a consistent, rationally functioning set of underlying principles that form the only coherent foundation by which a person can live a justifiably sound and supernaturally satisfying life. Only the Christian worldview can account for reality, epistemology, morality, the natural and the supernatural. The Atheist cannot give a rational account for anything based solely upon his worldview.
Questions that the Atheist is challenged to answer:
What is your standard of truth?
What is its authoritative ultimate reference point?
What is your warrant for morality?
Does good exist apart from God?
Can you define yourself apart from God?
What is your authority regarding the non-existence of the supernatural?
What evidence can you present that denies the certain existence of God?
THEBOMB

Con

The topic we are debating here is "does God exist?", I assume my opponent means the Judea-Christian God and not say the Hindu Gods.

I observe the following things from my opponents opening statement.

O1. My opponent has shifted the burden of proof onto himself. He has stated that "The ultimate standard by which I will advance my argument will be the objective Word of God" and now must prove that the word of God actually is the word of God and that God was the one who gave the scriptures to man. Furthermore, he must prove God created the Universe.

O2. My opponent must state and prove the Christian World View is in accordance with the God of Christianity.

O3. My opponent, by making these statements, must prove God exists in order to support his statements.

O4. My opponent must prove that God's characteristics are the ones which Christianity accepts or else the God of Christianity does not exist.

As for his questions I'll answer them throughout the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
RBaker

Pro

I was hoping to have an opponent who would actually engage in argumentation following the format of a formal debate where:
1. I present my opening statement identifying the grounds and assertions of my position in the affirmative (God does exist) of the proposed debate "Does God Exist?" Which I did.
2. My opponent would present his position (God does not exist) in which he asserts the negative, with his foundation, of the debate. Which you did not.
3. Neither did you offer a response nor attempt to refute my position.
We only have three rounds left. Would you like to continue?
THEBOMB

Con

I don't have to refute your position because you have not even made an argument. You should have proposed your format in the first round otherwise I'm going to do what I normally do, provide definitions and observations about my opponents argument in the first round. Besides it's obvious what I am arguing....God does not exist isn't that the title of the debate? We're going to have to make a entirely new debate if you actually want to debate it in the format you suggest....
Debate Round No. 2
RBaker

Pro

THEBOMB: "The topic we are debating here is "does God exist?", I assume my opponent means the Judea-Christian God and not say the Hindu Gods."
You do not have to assume. I made it quite clear: "Christianity asserts…God in Scripture demonstrates…""God in Scripture demonstrates…where God, the sovereign Creator and Lord of the universe providentially sustains all things." "…The Christian position is the only rational position to hold. God has sufficiently revealed in Scripture…" "The ultimate standard by which I will advance my argument will be the objective Word of God." …"the redemption of Christ and regeneration of the Holy Spirit"…
I'm not sure how you could have missed it.
You have, by your response, unwittingly answered my first question: "What is your standard of truth?" You have made yourself the final arbiter of what constitutes necessary proofs. You have taken the position that you are capable of judging whether:
01. "the word of God actually is the word of God and that God was the one who gave the scriptures to man." The Bible is self-attesting – "All scripture is inspired by God…" 2Timothy 3:15 "But know this first of all, that prophecy of scripture is not a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 2 Peter 1:20-21 "…when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God…" 1 Thessalonians 2:13
02." My opponent must state and prove the Christian World View is in accordance with the God of Christianity." Did I not state at the very outset "I will present in my argument that only the Christian position, as described in the Bible, supplies the necessary foundation for the pre-conditions of understanding the nature of reality, true knowledge, and human ethics....the objective special revelation of God in Scripture demonstrates the unavoidable necessity and certainty of the existence of the only true and living God." Which states: "Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things of earth…since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him…" There is the "in accordance"
O3. "My opponent, by making these statements, must prove God exists in order to support his statements." This is circular reasoning in the most obvious succession of words. My statements support my argument that God exists. In a debate a person presents his premises and conclusion then it is up to the opponent to demonstrate the irrationality of the proposition.
O4. "My opponent must prove that God's characteristics are the ones which Christianity accepts or else the God of Christianity does not exist." This is merely an extension of 02. The Bible is God's self-disclosure. As I presented in my opening statement, Christians accept the inspiration and authority of the Bible as their ultimate standard of truth. To know the Bible is to know God's special revelation of Himself. Therefore, according to your own criteria - God exists. You, being the ultimate authority of your position, are implying that absolute knowledge resides within your ability to determine the continuity of Gods characteristics and Christianity's knowledge of them. And because you have all of this knowledge to be able to weigh the reliability of the demanded proof (since you offered no other standard) and you can retreat further onto the never-ending wheel of not being presented with enough evidence, you pronounce the arbitrary verdict: "the God of Christianity does not exist"
Afterward you say, "I don't have to refute your position because you have not even made an argument." This is a fallacious and absurd statement, defying rationality. You admit that I presented a "position" yet deny the existence of an argument.
ar•gu•ment ɑr gyə mənt [ahr-gyuh-muh nt]
noun
1. an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation: a violent argument.

2. a discussion involving differing points of view; debate: They were deeply involved in an argument about inflation.

3. a process of reasoning; series of reasons: I couldn't follow his argument.

4. a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point: This is a strong argument in favor of her theory.

5. an address or composition intended to convince or persuade; persuasive discourse.

6. subject matter; theme: The central argument of his paper was presented clearly.

You would do well to seek out a coherent objective standard in place of your faulty, subjective one.
I clearly stated my position and the authority from which I would proceed. You stated clearly your position as an Atheist: "it's obvious what I am arguing....God does not exist isn't that the title of the debate?" Well, no, actually the title is "Does God Exist?" but I will continue.
As an Atheist you deny Creation as a myth and embrace Evolution as a scientific fact. To you Creation is a "faith" system with no physical evidence and Evolution presupposes the non-existence of the non-material spiritual realm. Therefore an all-powerful, all-knowing God cannot exist.
A couple of facts on evolution according to the science of mathematics:
"To get one cell by chance would require at least 100 functional proteins to appear simultaneously in one place. The independent probability for each one of those proteins coming into existence by chance could hardly be more than 10 to the -20th power." "Evolution a Theory in Crisis" by Michael Denton 1986. That's 1 chance in 10 with 20 zeros. But then you have to multiply by the 100 proteins for just one cell to function.
"Each person has about 2000 enzymes necessary for life and the chance of obtaining them in a random trial is about 1 in 10 to the -40,000 power. "Evolution from Space" Hoyles and Wickerisman 1981
There are hundreds of thousands of fossil records. There is not one single shred of evidence for transmutation (the missing link) between species. There have been attempts at manufacturing them but they have been proved to be hoaxes. e.g. "The Piltdown Man"
Science asserts that it takes about 1,000 years for erosion to produce 1 inch of topsoil. There is currently an average of 6-9 inches of topsoil worldwide. If evolution occurred over say 15 billion years, this is roughly what evolutionists say is necessary for human existence to finally arrive, how do you account for the lack of mathematical support? Plus if 15 billion years is close to true, science says there would have to be fifty feet of meteor dust on earth.
In physics the "second law of thermodynamics" by itself refutes gradual evolution and affirms "Entropy" – the universe is devolving (winding down). The evidence is not on your side.
Christianity alone explains and is compatible with the facts. It is consistent, coherent and the only rational worldview to hold.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…Then God said ‘Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness… God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day." Genesis 1
You do know God exists. Romans 1:18-25
18 "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen"
You have neither the capability nor the right to be the judge of God. If you "see" this and turn from your supposed autonomy and turn to God, bowing in submission, trusting in His remedy for sin through faith in Christ, He will receive you and give you a new heart and a new mind.
THEBOMB

Con

Alright I guess we'll debate this then.

O1. You state that the bible is self-attesting. But, here's the problem your using the supposedly divinely inspired bible to justify that the bible was given to man by God. Here is your logic:

S1. The Bible is the Word of God.
S2. Because the Bible tells us it is the word of God.
S3. Because the Bible is infallible. (How do you know?)
S4. Because the Bible is the Word of God. (How can you be sure?)
S5. Because the Bible tells us it is the word of God. (Why believe the bible?)
S6. Because the Bible is infallible (How do you know?)
S7. Because the Bible is the Word of God. (How can you be sure?)
S8. Because the Bible tells us it is the word of God
And this cycle continues on forever.

This is obviously circular logic and it is completely fallacious. Therefore, I declare, until my opponent can come up with a logical way the bible is infallible, and the word of God, to not be a valid. His ultimate standard is a fallacy therefore, his ultimate world view is a fallacy.

O2. Saying you will argue something is not the same as actually arguing it. And my opponent is citing Colossians 3:1-4 which is invalid as it is part of the Bible.

O3. Your statements said that you will make an argument to prove God's existence you never did make that argument. My opponent has not proven God's existence which is necessary for all his claims.

O4. The Bible is invalid to prove God's existence as I explained above. So my opponents claims here are invalid. Furthermore, my opponent never made a claim. All he did was outline what he is going to claim later. Your position is God exists. Your arguments, or warrants, are not present. All you did was state what you are going to argue. I urge you to look at definition 4. You never made an argument to support your position.

An all-knowing, all-powerful God cannot exist because no one has proven the contrary.

Furthermore, as for your argument over evolution, disproving evolution does not necessarily make God exist.

As for the rest of your arguments, you state it is highly improbable that it happened by itself. But, improbable does not mean impossible. Therefore, it is possible.

As for the missing fossil link, just look at these charts. Boxes=what is historically known.

1850: http://en.wikipedia.org...
1900: http://en.wikipedia.org...
1950: http://en.wikipedia.org...
2002: http://en.wikipedia.org...

The trend is going up. Therefore, it is logical to assume a "link" will be found.

First of all, the Universe, according to science, is only around 13.7 billion years old (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...). The earth has only existed for 4.54 billion years (http://pubs.usgs.gov...) and for a majority of earth's formation it was uninhabitable and extremely unstable (volcanoes, no atmosphere, etc.) So I don't see how evolution could have been there for 15 billion years when the universe is only 13.7 billion years old.

Entropy is only a thermodynamical property to determine the energy available for work. So yes, eventually the Universe will not be able to work, have no thermodynamic free energy, and will be unable to sustain life. So in a way the Universe is winding down (William Thomson).

Once again, you cannot use the bible as an authoritative source to claim God exists.

My opponent has failed to meet his Burden of Proof.
Debate Round No. 3
RBaker

Pro

In this last round I will address some of THEBOMB's remarks and conclude with my closing statement.
"Alright I guess we'll debate this then." In pursuing this you have just lost the debate.
In the last round (3)
01.This is a "straw man" offering only a fallacious, non-existent sideshow.
In that I state my foundation for my worldview is the Christian Scriptures and that they attest to its own veracity, I present that my presuppositions for this debate ("Does God Exist") have been the inspiration and explanation for my confident trust and logical argument for the certain existence of God. How is it a "problem" for THEBOMB that I use whatever standard I wish? And argue for the impossibility of the contrary? The problem is not that I have a self-attesting, self-verifying ultimate authority. The problem is you do not. This renders your worldview subjective, unverifiable and irrational.
02. I cannot cite from my foundation because you say so? You are, in advance, disallowing any use of a Christian's foundation of Scripture until you are convinced by incontrovertible evidence of Scripture being the word of a non-existent God. You pretend to be neutral until you have enough facts. This is a fallacy of self-deception, a philosophical error. Every claim that someone makes must be tested by evidence. You say that empirical science is the only way to prove the facts. Did you prove this theory scientifically? What about the evidence of history? We both have precommitments through which all facts are interpreted. You have not proven, by empirical evidence and logic your precommitment to science. You have also assumed your position in advance, everyone does. So your objection is baseless and absurd. I am giving you evidence that the Christian worldview is the only worldview that is consistent with the nature of reality, knowledge, and absolute moral values.
You cannot account for these as they are immaterial and universal.
03,04. I repeat:
"Christianity asserts that the uniformity, complexity and physical laws of nature as well as the objective special revelation of God in Scripture demonstrates the unavoidable necessity and certainty of the existence of the only true and living God. The Christian worldview gives answers to the meaning and purpose of life - makes sense out of life - asserts that there is a supernatural existence beyond the five senses where God, the sovereign Creator and Lord of the universe providentially sustains all things…The Christian position is the only rational position to hold. God has sufficiently revealed in Scripture, directly or indirectly, answers to all of man's basic questions – How did the universe come into being? Why did the universe come into existence? Why am I here? What is my purpose? Is this all there is? What happens after death? How can I escape the judgment of a holy God? etc. Only the Christian worldview can account for reality, epistemology, morality, the natural and the supernatural. The Atheist cannot give a rational account for anything based solely upon his worldview." In round three I presented "A couple of facts on evolution according to the science of mathematics" And evidence that…"You do know God exists." Romans 1:18-25

18 "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen" You do know God exists. Romans 1:18-25
18 "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen"
Evolutionary scientific theory sees the universe as its own creator and therefore the source of all else. With this self-sustaining creative power, the universe, to you, effectively becomes god.
Your charge: "You never made an argument to support your position." is obviously groundless. Furthermore, why do you require that I give you a reason proving God's existence since, in your worldview, there is no reason for reason itself? You would say it is a requirement for debate. And so it is. So you must contradict yourself and stand on the Christian worldview in order to debate. Evaluation of rational discourse requires a standard of measure – the "laws" of logic. You expect the laws of logic to apply to a rational argument but in your materialistic, naturalistic universe the abstract laws of logic cannot exist.
"An all-knowing, all-powerful God cannot exist because no one has proven the contrary." My opponent is simply "Begging the Question"
"Furthermore, as for your argument over evolution, disproving evolution does not necessarily make God exist."
If evolution is disproved then what is the necessary alternative?
"As for the rest of your arguments, you state it is highly improbable that it happened by itself. But, improbable does not mean impossible. Therefore, it is possible."
These were non-religious, mathematical "probabilities" quoted from scientists who do not embrace creation. My stand is that evolution is impossible logically and by science's own "laws" and that Christianity is consistent throughout.
As I stated in my opening argument: "The Christian position is the only rational position to hold." I did not state, as you misrepresented, nor am I arguing for probabilities.
The atheist attempts to deny the existence of God but cannot account for his philosophy of life. He lives according to the reliable uniformity of nature yet asserts that nature is random chance. He cannot explain why science works. Science is intelligible only because there are certain "laws", which God imposed, governing the natural order. The atheist is inconsistent to his worldview that disallows the immaterial yet he must depend on those abstract laws. The atheist is inconsistent in his reasoning. He publically and gladly asserts the necessity of the "laws" of logic to be able to understand and apply science yet cannot explain how, in a universe of chance and random chaos these "laws" obtain. Your view of reality makes science impossible.
If what you say is true, you can't know what is true because there are no "laws" governing your reasoning if you are consistent with your worldview. Here's why: Facts are random events in a chance universe, per your worldview, or they are elements of the all-organizing, rational plan of God who created, governs, and gives meaning, value and purpose to the universe and all of its facts according to my worldview. For, you see, once God is denied, the only possible explanation for the original creation of the universe is by chance. Therefore your worldview is ultimately grounded in chance. Facts are random, chance events with no meaning because they sustain no necessary connection to any other facts in that chance is opposite of law which organizes and relates facts.
If all knowledge is governed by observation, how did you come to know that? Did you observe that in a lab? Did you measure weigh, or count it? Did you observe that this principle is a universal limitation on knowledge in all places at all times so that you can confidently trust it?
I do not, in any way, deny that atheists accomplish great scientific achievements. Nor do I deny that they engage in rational, highly academic endeavors and can be very moral. But they cannot do these consistently with their view of reality. Logic is abstract, universal and invariant. Laws of logic are among many evidences that without God you cannot prove anything at all. On the most important philosophical issues that men must face – logic, science, ethics – the atheist universe is incapable of justifying its worldview. Atheism is inconsistent, self-contradicting, and self-refuting. Don't forget that this authority of the consensus of science also declared "the earth is flat", "the earth is the center of the universe", "leeches remove poisonous humors" "lobotomies cure mental illness", Pluto is a planet", and "There is nothing faster than the speed of light"
"But the word of the Lord endures forever. And this is the word which was preached to you." 1Peter 1:25
"In a chance universe, all particular facts would be random, have no classifiable identity, bear no predetermined order or relation, and thus be unintelligible." Bahnsen
Logic reflects the character of the Christian Creator-Redeemer-God. He has given empirical and internal evidence to all men as well as an objective inscripturated record of His story. But He has given the greatest of all assurance, not just of His existence but also His grace, mercy, love, patience, holiness, and justice in sending His Son-Jesus Christ to take on human nature according to His plan: "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven." Hebrews 1:1-3 "For God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." 2Corinthians 4:6 "For the Son of man has come to seek and to save that which was lost." Luke 19:10 He was man that He might be a sacrifice and He was God that He might be the remedy.
THEBOMB

Con

I thank my opponent and will conclude.

C1. My opponent claims my logic constitutes a straw man fallacy. But, how was I misrepresenting my opponents position? I just provided the circular logic used to validate the "divinely inspired" bible. You never specifically stated in your opening round that we must presuppose the bible is divinely inspired nor did you prove that it is divinely inspired. Therefore, you may presuppose this but, I do not. All catholic teachings stem from a set of texts which are based upon circular logical reasoning, which logically is useless. Therefore, why should we hold anything my opponent states as true when it is based upon useless logic? You presuppose something which I did not presuppose and that is where your argument logically fails. Pro's entire case rests upon the bible which he has not proven is a valid source.

C2. You cannot cite from your foundation because logically your foundation, the bible, is not valid until proven otherwise. The Christian Scripture cannot be used as irrefutable evidence until logically it is proven that the Christian Scripture is irrefutable. Pro has not proved the Christian Scripture is irrefutable. I do not need to prove my precommitment to science and logic as you have the burden of proof in this debate and must prove your case. My objection is that you base your entire case upon a collection of texts you claim is irrefutable evidence and you have not proved logically this collection of texts is irrefutable. Your quote has in it "God has sufficiently revealed in Scripture" he never proved this statement is logically correct. I declare your scriptural quotes, once again, invalid for the scope of this debate.

C3. You claim that you do not have to give a reason for God's existence. But, is that not the debate, "Does God exist?". You gave yourself the Burden of Proof and never refuted it. Therefore, you must prove God exists. I hold no burden to prove anything in this debate, "O1. My opponent has shifted the burden of proof onto himself." Pro never argued this. He still has the BOP. I still provided evidence holding that the foundation of the Christian worldview, the Bible, is fallacious and therefore, the Christian worldview is fallacious. There is no Christian worldview to rely upon. My opponent has not proven an all-knowing, all-powerful God exists and that was his burden for this debate.

My opponent has never proven a God exists at anytime during the course of this debate and that was the entire point of the debate.

My opponents overall logic:
S1. The Christian worldview holds God exists.
SubS1. The Christian world-view is based upon the bible.
S2. I hold the Christian worldview.
C. God exists.

S1 is dependent upon SubS1. I have shown SubS1 to be fallacious, therefore, S1 is fallacious. Since his first supposition logically falls apart there can be no S2 nor can there be a valid conclusion.

My overall logic.

S1. The Christian world-view holds God exists.
SubS1. The Christian worldview is based upon the bible.
S2. The Bible's validity is based upon circular reasoning
S3. God's existence is based upon circular reasoning.
S4. Circular reasoning is not logically valid.
C. God's existence is not logically valid.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by RBaker 4 years ago
RBaker
"you should have said that during the debate.....not a month after....also you gave yourself the BOP to prove God exists. You did not do so without scripture which I proved a circular and thus null and void" To this second point I refer back to my last post in our debate. "my confident trust and logical argument for the certain existence of God…And argue for the impossibility of the contrary" "Christianity asserts that the uniformity, complexity and physical laws of nature as well as the objective special revelation of God in Scripture demonstrates the unavoidable necessity and certainty of the existence of the only true and living God." It was manifestly evident and in plain language throughout the debate that I indeed did offer "proof" for God's existence. The fact that you did not accept the proof was a given from the start because of the presuppositions underlying your position of the debate. As I stated "You, being the ultimate authority of your position, are implying that absolute knowledge resides within your ability to determine the continuity of Gods characteristics and Christianity's knowledge of them. And because you have all of this knowledge to be able to weigh the reliability of the demanded proof (since you offered no other standard) and you can retreat further onto the never-ending wheel of not being presented with enough evidence, you pronounce the arbitrary verdict: "the God of Christianity does not exist" As demonstrated your interpretation of facts through science will never be enough. The only proof necessary for the existence of God is that without Him you cannot prove anything. To the first point - I should have said …what? I will debate using TAG? A failure to recognize a logical argument resulted in a failure to engage in a rational response to it. A failure to recognize the offered proof of a position resulted in a failure to refute it. To fail in any of these essential components results in a failed debate position.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
...you should have said that during the debate.....not a month after....also you gave yourself the BOP to prove God exists. You did not do so without scripture which I proved a circular and thus null and void.
Posted by RBaker 4 years ago
RBaker
It was apparent during this debate that THEBOMB has never encountered the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God not recognizing an indirect argument of the impossibility of the contrary. His worldview of materialistic naturalistic atheism only allows direct empirical evidence of the sort and extent which he would judge as incontrovertible. Both the theist and the atheist interpret the facts through the grid of their basic precommitments to intelligibility. So only an internal critique of worldviews demonstrating their cogency, coherence and consistency or lack thereof will determine which is warranted. THEBOMB as an atheist, in principle, cannot account for 1The uniformity of nature 2Laws of logic 3 Morality 4The origin of the universe 5The nature of reality 6True knowledge. He must subconsciously presuppose Christian epistemology to make sense of anything. Atheists offer The Big Bang but fail to overcome ex nihilo nihil fit except to assert that matter is eternal. Atheists have no empirical evidence and therefore cannot scientifically prove that matter is the uncaused cause of everything - blatantly inconsistent and self-contradictory to their own worldview. However they would rather embrace the irrationality of an illogical self-refuting epistemic system than bend the knee to the Creator and Sovereign Judge demonstrating the truth of Romans 1seemingly oblivious to the fact that inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument. Science cannot prove the origin of existence by its own standards. Science cannot justify morality. Science cannot account for the immaterial such as the mind, love, good, evil, logic etc. Science cannot account for Darwin's Eye. Science cannot account for why you care to deny the existence of God in a debate. Science cannot account for why you are afraid to die. Only the Christian worldview can give a reasoned response and escape from this crucial concept of self-deception.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
jeez...a 90 day voting period....
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
If he begins his case we will not have enough time for an adequate debate
Posted by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
I suspect the answers for most atheists will be different to your questions. Here's mine:

What is your standard of truth?
The exclusion of the alternative

What is its authoritative ultimate reference point?
Nothing - everything must be questioned and critically examined

What is your warrant for morality?
Psychology

Does good exist apart from God?
There are no moral absolutes, as one cannot exclude a moral alternative, but subjective good exists in how we perceive it.

Can you define yourself apart from God?
"me"

What is your authority regarding the non-existence of the supernatural?
One needs no authority to doubt, but define supernatural.

What evidence can you present that denies the certain existence of God?
Depends on what you believe makes God's existence certain.

And BTW pro, you don't need to have a round for just asserting positions. Since you clearly have the burden of proof, you might as well just begin your case.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
RBakerTHEBOMBTied
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: Pro's opening post was pure bluster, "I'ma stomp a you face, you fool!" He didn't make an actual argument. So Con had nothing to argue against. Then Pro attacked Con for not refuting Pro's argument, but Pro hadn't made an argument yet. Conduct: Con. Pro never made an argument, just insulted Con for not refuting Pro's nonexistent argument. Persuasion: Con. Pro, why do you think god exists? You forgot to say.