The Instigator
TheLapsang
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points
The Contender
kingsoji
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points

Does God exist? The proposition is that there is a Christian God who is omnipotent and all-loving.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/1/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,247 times Debate No: 4562
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (16)

 

TheLapsang

Con

Clearly the onus is on the person arguing the affirmative - God's existence - to present the evidence. However, I will present one argument against God's existence, then rebut several typical arguments for the existence of God.

Argument against God:
Atheism has the best explanation for God's hidden nature. The evidence for God is slim, the evidence for Christianity is slimmer still. Even if you claim, as I'm sure you do, that there is strong evidence for God then my question is this: Why is it not stronger? The fact that the majority of the world is not a Christian is evidence against Christianity. God could have made it more evident that he exists and that Christianity is also correct. For example, he could have included some fantastic scientific discovery - evolution, cure for plague, cure for cancer etc. What about if Jesus, instead of only sticking around for 40 days after resurrecting had stuck around for longer, perhaps 100 years, 1000 years still hear now. Then there would be little doubt as to his existence. This probably strikes you as a stupid argument, if everybody knew God existed then there would be no room for faith. Yet, faith used in this context - believing in something without knowing it to be true and against reason - is, by definition unreasonable, so to use it is a reason is wrong.
So, God's hidden nature is compatible with atheism and not theism.

To summarise:
Premise 1: God would not want people to suffer.
Premise 2: Atheists (or anyone who does not share your beliefs about God ie people of a different religion) will suffer through hell, or lack of reaching some higher state of happiness.
Premise 3: God could have made everybody believe in Him by presenting proof of His own existence, on a par with the evidence for, say, gravity.
Premise 4: Not everybody does believe in a God

Now onto the second stage of my opening statement. I will rebut the cosmological, or first cause argument.
The argument is this: Everything has a cause, what is the cause of the universe, it must be God.
First of all, this is a classic 'God of the Gaps' argument - we don't know what caused the universe, or even if it has a cause. After all, the tautology of causation could not apply to the universe as a whole, it could be infinite.
Secondly, the classic response to the argument is 'What caused God', a theist replies by either saying, 'This is an unanswerable question', in which case why not just cut out the unneccessary link, and use the philosophical tool 'Occamm's Razor' to get rid of the unneccessary assumptions. Or, they will respond, 'God does not require a cause; He is infinite', again, why not just leave it as the universe does not require a cause, one must not add any unneccessary complications and assumptions to a problem.

Another popular argument for God's existence is the anthropic argument.
It goes, the whole universe seems benign, we, on earth, are incredibly lucky to be here, the improbability of there being a planet with the correct conditions to foster life, especially life with consciousness', God must, therefore, have created it. However, the logic is once again spurious, it commits the 'lottery fallacy', (putting the cosmological argument aside), the universe had to turn out one way or another, so the mere fact that it happened to turn out this way, producing such extroadinary life, is no more surprising than winning a massive lottery - someone had to. Let alone evidence for a God, how much more improbable must God be to create this universe than the improbability of the universe creating life. Also, as the great philospher David Hume showed in his wonderful work 'Enquiry into public understanding', we must always believe the extroadinary over the miraculous.

And that concludes my opening statement.
kingsoji

Pro

It is necessary at the outset of our debate to define our terms; that is always the case.
And in particular here, I should make it clear what I mean when I use the term "God".
I want to specify that I'm arguing particularly in favor of Christian theism, and for it as a
unit or system of thought and not for anything like theism in general, and there are reasons
for that. The various conceptions of deity found in world religions are in most cases logically
incompatible, leaving no unambiguous sense to general theism - whatever that might be.
I have not found the non-Christian religions to be philosophically defensible, each of
them being internally incoherent or undermining human reason and experience.
Since I am by the grace of God a Christian, I cannot, from the heart, adequately defend
those religious faiths with which I disagree. My commitment is to the Triune God and the
Christian world view based on God's revelation in the Old and New Testaments. So, first I
am defending Christian theism.
Debate Round No. 1
TheLapsang

Con

OK, so to clarify, our definition of Christian God is:
He is a triune, He is eternal, He is omnipotent, He is omnibenevolent, He is omniscient, He is omnipresent, He created the world with a purpose, He is the ultimate judge.
You can object to any of these bar His supposed omnipotence, His omniscience, and His omnibenevolence, for all these are characteristics which I have, in my previous post, tried to demonstrate are mutually exclusive.

There are only three rounds each in this debate, and this is already my second round, so could you, in your next post, present all your arguments and rebuttals of my initial argument, so that I will be able to respond to them and do them justice. (If need be we can have another debate if you're willing and don't feel we have been able to cover all the topics you'd have wanted)

Good luck
kingsoji

Pro

kingsoji forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
TheLapsang

Con

I think that I have won this debate without question, I posted an argument against the existence of God, which had no rebuttal whatsoever. Then I posted two rebuttals of arguments for the existence of God, incidentally neither of the arguments he actually presented.
Whether or not you agree with me, and whether or not you think my logic is sound, I am the only person you can, intelligently, vote for.

If my opponent now presents a post, I hope that you all see it as a below the belt tactic, and so should be disregarded. As I cannot respond to it during this debate, as I've used up all my rounds.

If anyone wants to have this, or a similar debate with me. I would be more than happy to oblige, so let me know or challenge me. Many thanks.
kingsoji

Pro

kingsoji forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by believer_720 8 years ago
believer_720
Something to add though.
Something that bugs me is when people completely misinterpret the christian view on God.
But I think I'm coming to a realization.
Maybe that is the common view on God by christians?
I mean, it's possible that I am far from this group, but either way I'm start to realize that, what is taking God and the Bible out of context may not be the case for another christian.
Posted by believer_720 8 years ago
believer_720
Although I completely and strongly disagree with CON's argument, he's really the only one that made an argument. That means, i'm not voting.
=P
Posted by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
Voted CON

"The various conceptions... leaving no unambiguous sense to general theism - whatever that might be."

Interesting. It's unambiguous yet you have no idea what it is.

Then "I have not found the non-Christian religions to be philosophically defensible, each of
them being internally incoherent or undermining human reason and experience."

And the Christian religion is internally coherent, does not undermine reason or experience, and is philosophically defensible? Hmmm.
Posted by TheLapsang 8 years ago
TheLapsang
True. And it was Richard Weatherwax who said,
"You do not need the bible to justify love, but no better tool has been invented to justify hate."
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." - isaac asimov
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by currie_jean 8 years ago
currie_jean
TheLapsangkingsojiTied
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 
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
TheLapsangkingsojiTied
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 
Vote Placed by Hanevet 8 years ago
Hanevet
TheLapsangkingsojiTied
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 
Vote Placed by masterzanzibar 8 years ago
masterzanzibar
TheLapsangkingsojiTied
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 
Vote Placed by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
TheLapsangkingsojiTied
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 
Vote Placed by failedspecies 8 years ago
failedspecies
TheLapsangkingsojiTied
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 
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
TheLapsangkingsojiTied
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 
Vote Placed by BeatTheDevil89 8 years ago
BeatTheDevil89
TheLapsangkingsojiTied
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 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
TheLapsangkingsojiTied
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 
Vote Placed by Battlecry 8 years ago
Battlecry
TheLapsangkingsojiTied
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