The Instigator
A-ThiestSocialist
Pro (for)
Winning
33 Points
The Contender
joze14rock
Con (against)
Losing
24 Points

Does God exist?

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 12/15/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,827 times Debate No: 488
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (19)

 

A-ThiestSocialist

Pro

Before I begin, please only accept this debate if you will actually respond and debate. The last try I had at this, the guy never actually posted.

I would first like to clarify exactly what my standard for this debate is, and provide some background for this discussion.

1st Observation: I am arguing for theism, that is to say a rational God does exist. But further I am arguing for an only for the Christian God, as revealed by the holy scriptures.

2nd Observation: The affirmative does not necessarily have the burden of proof, since a negative absolute is able to be proven in this debate by an analysis of the arguments current and prior.

3rd Observation: Presuppositions must be taken into account when weighing this round, that is to say someone who is a prior atheist will not be as easily persuaded as a Christian. Also, we have to take into account what each respective world view allows, and which each one can allow for.

4th Observation: All arguments must have a philosophical or empirical nature for this debate. We are arguing the ideas themselves, not just our beliefs, or who believes them.

Next I'd like to get to my 3 arguments for the existence of God:
1. The argument from abstract absolutes
2. The transcendental argument for the existence of God
3. The argument from moral foundation

I. The argument from abstract absolutes.
The existence of abstract absolutes proves God's existence. An abstract absolute is a concept that is not absolutely seen, but exists and is accepted. An example of this would be newton's laws of physics, or the law of non contradiction. (A statement cannot be true and false simultaneously) They are not dependent upon man, and man did not create them, man simply discovered them. The following proof explains:

1. Abstract absolutes exist.
2. Abstract absolutes would still exist if man kind were to disappear.
3. Abstract absolutes existed before man.
4. Abstract absolutes can not have been created by man.
5. Something besides man must have created abstract absoultes.
6. The atheist world view of matter in motion cannot account for these absolutes.
7. The only tangible cause of this is God.

Therefore, God exists.

II. The transcendental argument for the existence of God.
Although these two arguments are similar, they are not exactly the same.
The general premise of us even having this discussion, presupposes God's existence. By even arguing this, one is engaging in the laws of logic and argumentation, and the only world view that can account for this is the Christian one. Furthermore, this is proven by the impossibility of the contrary. Without God, it is impossible to prove anything at all whatsoever.

1. To prove or disprove God's existence requires logic.
2. Logic is perfect and absolute.
3. Logic is not conventional.
4. Logic presupposes God.
5. Arguing God's existence proves God's existence.

Therefore, God exists.

III. The argument from moral foundation.
An atheist has no moral backing to prove something is right or wrong. In a world that is matter in motion, a high five is as wrong as theft. The world view of atheism can not account for a differential between right and wrong. The only plausible explanation of something right or perfect would be God, since what is right is a reflection of God's character. The existence of these morals and absolute morals thus further reflect this.

1. Morals exist.
2. Morals are not conventional.
3. Absolute morals exist.
4. The existence of absolute morals does not comply with the atheist world view of matter in motion.
5. Only the theistic Christian God world view accounts for absolute morals.

Therefore God exists.

Thus through these arguments the only logical conclusion is that God exists, specifically the Christian God.
joze14rock

Con

First, I would like to state that I'm not an atheist. I actually am a Christian. But for this debate I will argue against the existence of God.

This is how I will outline my rebuttal and my own points:

a)-> Wisdom cannot prove the existence of an omnipotent God such as the one in the Bible

1) What is Wisdom? – The search for truth

2) What is Obedient Love? – Following all of God's decrees and commandments without questioning or doubting

3) While philosophy preaches a life of autonomous understanding, the Bible dictates a life of obedient love.

4) The Bible denies the pursuit of wisdom. E.g. For example, the wretched eating of the apple in the Garden of Eden represents the search of wisdom, the search to know good and evil.

5) The search for truth and obedience to God are at odds with each other

6) The search for truth (philosophy) is limited in only being provided things of worldly existence. God is beyond worldly existence (due to His omnipotence) and thus cannot be proved but only speculated.

b)-> Logical arguments – like the transcendental argument for the existence, the argument from moral foundation, argument from abstract absolutes – cannot prove the existence of God but only speculate His existence

1) Philosophy of Religion is not a sufficient source of proof for God

2) I will not refute each individual argument because that would be futile. The only thing that needs to be known is that each argument has its atheistic counter reply.

3) Thus philosophy is speculative which cannot prove the existence of an absolute God, which if absolute, is not debatable.

c)-> Since God can only be speculated on and not definitely proven, God does not exist – for any human argument for His existence is just as valid than one against His existence, and so any one person who accepts the atheistic point of view is comforted on the fact that the absolute cannot be proven.

1) Since we can't prove the existence of an omnipotent God, we can't prove that the brutality and immorality in the Bible has a divine purpose

2) Thus the Bible is merely a historical account of brutality, superstition, and vague morality.
(The account in Joshua of killing all infants and women or the account in Genesis of infidelity)
Debate Round No. 1
A-ThiestSocialist

Pro

I'm going to refute my opponents points, and summerize why I won the debate.

"First, I would like to state that I'm not an atheist. I actually am a Christian. But for this debate I will argue against the existence of God.

This is how I will outline my rebuttal and my own points:

a)-> Wisdom cannot prove the existence of an omnipotent God such as the one in the Bible

1) What is Wisdom? – The search for truth

2) What is Obedient Love? – Following all of God's decrees and commandments without questioning or doubting

3) While philosophy preaches a life of autonomous understanding, the Bible dictates a life of obedient love.

4) The Bible denies the pursuit of wisdom. E.g. For example, the wretched eating of the apple in the Garden of Eden represents the search of wisdom, the search to know good and evil.

5) The search for truth and obedience to God are at odds with each other

6) The search for truth (philosophy) is limited in only being provided things of worldly existence. God is beyond worldly existence (due to His omnipotence) and thus cannot be proved but only speculated."

My opponents major claim is that God is beyond worldly existence and can only be speculated. Well first and foremost, this argument is nonresolutional. The question is does god exist, not can you logically prove Gods' existence. Secondly, Gods' revelence of himself towards man in the holy scripture and in sending himself toward man actually proves his existence. Also, God has revealed himself biblically toward men, (Jesus revealed God to the people as the final sacrifice, and Moses saw the burning bush) so te idea that God is only speculative is false.

"b)-> Logical arguments – like the transcendental argument for the existence, the argument from moral foundation, argument from abstract absolutes – cannot prove the existence of God but only speculate His existence

1) Philosophy of Religion is not a sufficient source of proof for God

2) I will not refute each individual argument because that would be futile. The only thing that needs to be known is that each argument has its atheistic counter reply.

3) Thus philosophy is speculative which cannot prove the existence of an absolute God, which if absolute, is not debatable.

c)-> Since God can only be speculated on and not definitely proven, God does not exist – for any human argument for His existence is just as valid than one against His existence, and so any one person who accepts the atheistic point of view is comforted on the fact that the absolute cannot be proven.

1) Since we can't prove the existence of an omnipotent God, we can't prove that the brutality and immorality in the Bible has a divine purpose

2) Thus the Bible is merely a historical account of brutality, superstition, and vague morality.
(The account in Joshua of killing all infants and women or the account in Genesis of infidelity)"

Again these arguments are nonresolutional, but also there is a major problem. My opponents case relies on his claim "C." This claim is logically fallacious. It is a non sequetar fallacy. He first assumes that God cannot be proven, them claims that God does not exist. The two don't follow each other. If we were to even assume God couldn't be proven, it would assume that then God couldn't be disproven. His claim thus is self contradicting. Also, he attempts to prove a negative absolute, which again is a logical fallacy.

My opponent neglected to actually refute any of my proofs, he simply said, there are refutations. That's simply illogical. I could use the same refutation on all of his points, and just say, I don't know any, but they exist, believe me. Also, because of the major problems in his claims, and their lack of pertainability on the discussion, they do not stand, and thus God exists.

Sorry for the long response, I had a LONG weekend.
joze14rock

Con

Don't worry about the long reply. We all have separate lives so I understand!! I will follow your line of argument and refute you point by point

1) "My opponents major claim is that God is beyond worldly existence and can only be speculated. Well first and foremost, this argument is nonresolutional. The question is does god exist, not can you logically prove Gods' existence. Secondly, Gods' revelence of himself towards man in the holy scripture and in sending himself toward man actually proves his existence. Also, God has revealed himself biblically toward men, (Jesus revealed God to the people as the final sacrifice, and Moses saw the burning bush) so te idea that God is only speculative is false."

-> While the resolution simply states "Does God Exist?" your opening round 1 outlines your debate, in which all your arguments for the existence of God consists of logical arguments for his existence. Any debater knows, as the negating side, I should focus my attacks in refuting your arguments foremost, THEN (secondary) bring up points of my own.
Actually, what I found puzzling is that you bring forth all these logical arguments for the existence of God, but which in no way link back to your second purpose -> prove that the biblical God exists.

Now, I would like to mention that I am well versed in Formal Logic. So your logical arguments for the existence of God, although valid, are not sufficient sources of evidence to PROVE the existence of God. At best, they merely INFER the existence of God. At the same time, though, there are opposing arguments that are just as valid. Now, I know that I committed some informal fallacies in my arguments, and I will address does later, below.

But my overarching argument right here is that Formal Logic is not a sufficient source to PROVE the existence of God. Or in other philosophical terms I argue for "Ockham's razor"
Ockham's razor: Is the notion that a theory, explanation, or account of X should infer or assume no more than ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to cover. In other words, extravagant arguments (like your's outline in Round 1) are invalid to this topic because only the simplest of arguments should be contracted to support the existence of a God. And since none exist in your outlined debate (simple argument), you have lost this round due to, for the lack of better words, OVERTHINKING the existence of God.

Now concerning your proof for the existence of the biblical God in relation to your formal logic, I shall merely quote logician Dr. James Hall:
"At most, we have shown that these [formal logical] arguments lead to Scottish verdicts. This is of little concern to many [Christians/Jews/Muslims] ethical monotheists, for they do not predicate their claim to know that God exists on the basis of such inferential argumentation"

Just because a biblical account says that God "revealed" himself (Jesus) to man, that doesn't mean LOGICALLY that God exists. Maybe through faith, but not wisdom or logic. Which leads to my overarching point:

There is a difference between WISDOM (autonomous understanding) and OBEDIENT LOVE (willing obedience to God's commandments and decrees). Philosophy, and logic as well, teaches a lifestyle of ongoing search for truth. The Bible teaches obedience in ALREADY REVEALED truth. Philosophy and the Bible are at odds with each other, and one can't harmonize both.
"The Bible refuses to be integrated into a philosophical framework, just as philosophy refuses to be integrated into a biblical framework" – Leo Strauss (Contemporary Jewish Philosopher, ‘Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity: Essays and Lectures in Modern Jewish Though')

2) "Again these arguments are nonresolutional, but also there is a major problem. My opponents case relies on his claim "C." This claim is logically fallacious. It is a non sequetar fallacy. He first assumes that God cannot be proven, them claims that God does not exist. The two don't follow each other. If we were to even assume God couldn't be proven, it would assume that then God couldn't be disproven. His claim thus is self contradicting. Also, he attempts to prove a negative absolute, which again is a logical fallacy."

I'm impressed of your knowledge of informal fallacies. Oh I did love that class in college. But the fact of the matter is, no one REALLY and PRAGMATICALLY argues in the realm of formal logic, as you do.
No one argues in
If All A is B
All C is B
Therefore, all A is C.
We ALL argue Fallaciously!! Politicians, parents, etc. Even yourself! Above, earlier, you claimed that because a biblical account STATES that God revealed Himself through His son (Jesus), then God exists. That itself is a fallacy: Appeal to Consequence of Belief- This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the consequences of a belief have no bearing on whether the belief is true or false.
But that okay. I'm not going to disclaim your fallacy, because normal and pragmatic argumentation is filled with fallacies:
"Recent scholarship has suggested, that if we really want to think about fallacies in informal reason, in everyday argument, instead of focusing primarily on form [formal logic] or primarily on experience, we ought to focus primarily on procedure and purpose and judge arguments strong or weak, valid or fallacious, only if the facilitate the purpose of the topic." – Professor David Zarefsky

I claim that God cannot be proven by Wisdom or Logic. Primarily Formal Logic (because these are the core arguments of my opponents support for the Existence of God)because formal logic merely INFERS, and does not DEFINITELY prove the existence of God. For there are opposing arguments that counter such arguments for the existence of God, so God is not ABSOLUTELY proven. Call it fallacious, fine, but it's true. And since the biblical God cannot be PROVEN, then there is no divine purpose for the accounts of brutality, infidelity, polygamy, etc in the Biblical accounts and so the Bible is merely a historical account of vague morality etc.

CONLUSION:
Quite the contrary, I have actually refuted your entire case by merely shooting down all your formal logical arguments for the existence of God. Wisdom (Philosophy) and the Obedience (The Bible) are at conflict and cannot be intertwined. Logic cannot prove the existence of God, which is what your whole entire case consists of, and so you have not proven the existence of God- which is my objective as the Con side to do: to follow the outline of your arguments you laid out in round one. I have utterly overturned all such arguments and have won this debate.
God does not exist because there is no humanistic way (wisdom) to prove His existence, except through faith (obedient love) which is merely superstition and imagination.
Debate Round No. 2
A-ThiestSocialist

Pro

Sorry again for the late response.
To save myself character usage, I'm going to refer to your arguments in paragraphs, I apologize for the inconvienence.

1st major paragraph/argument-
I mentioned the God I am arguing for because it is not possible for me to defend any other God because I do not have the convictions nor the knowledge to do so. I believe that my case ONLY complies with the Chrisian rational God, and this way, I could refute any possible argument from evil or argument from non-contradiction. In this round, it has no weighing in the decision.

Formal Logic-
The logical proofs proposed above show that through the pressuppositions or conditions of the world, they are incompatable with any other worldview besides the thiest worldview. Any opposing argument proposed by an athiest I will be more than happy to refute, but a logical proof must be dispoven in other methods, as you continue to attempt to do later.

Not sufficient proof-
This argument is partially valid, assuming you do not accept many of the claims I have, and this is perfectly fine. The idea that God can be overthought, I do not except. If we read some of the greatest logical proofs of all time, they are long and arduous, but nonetheless prove their meaning. (See Kant or Decartes)I find it ironic how you use Ockham, when he himself was a theist. Furthermore your argument consists essentially of the principle of Lex Parsimoniae. The problem with this when arguing against a logical argument, is that I'm asserting that God's existence is prior to reason, and thus the razor is essentially irrelevent. I'm claiming that God's existence is a transcendentally necessary for human experience and thought.

Next two paragraphs on Bible:
My essential claim with the Bible essentially assumes his existence, but we're assuming that in this point. The argument is that God exists, and he revealed himself in the Bible, thus the Bible can be used a predicatory evidence assuming God's existence to show his revelation. My logical proofs show God's existence, the Bible simply complies with these proofs and assumes a further standpoint.

Wisdom and Obedient love:
Again, I'm arguing that God pressupposes logic, thus the argument on philisophical thought and the Bible doesn't really correlate. You'd have to prove that God himself cannot be fused into philisophical thought, thus he could not have created it. I'll also further argue that the Bible and God do not propose the end of the search for truth. Once we discover God we are suppose to continue to marvel in his existence, and learn more about him and of him. That's why we all have doubts at some time on God's existence, and what he has planned for us.

Informal logic:
Ironically, to disprove something I said, and claiming it to be a fallacy, you engage in a logical fallacy. You're engaging in the straw man fallacy. You're misinterpreting/misquoting my claim. My claim was that God' revelation proves his existence. This means that because we can see God revealed in the Bible, and God can be seen, he can be proven, and further, (with a logical proposed proof) he exists. I apologize if that was vague. (which it was) I'm going to continue to rely on fallacies for disproving some arguments, for they are necessary to find perfect reasoning.

Cannot be proven:
I find it a little funny how you say, call it fallacious, but it's true. That really doesn't make sense, whatsoever. That's like saying, my argument can be disproven, but it's still true. Your essential argument is that God's existence is inferred by logic. I'm arguing from the impossibility of the contrary. We couldn't have this discussion without God's existence, and abstract absolutes would no exist. In a world with matter in motion, and only things tangible, there is no way to show that laws exist, however they do, and we accept them. I'll further argue, that let's say God exists. The Biblical God can exist, and has to exist, because it is the only God that complies with logic. If laws of logic exist, but God violated them, then they couldn't be laws. I'm not saying God couldn't violate them, but I am saying for them to exist God does not violate them. Personality less and vague God's do not account in this mindset, and thus cannot exist. You then argue that there is no divine purpose for things like brutality, because the Bible simply accounts for them historically. I don't really know if this has any weighing in the round because it assumes so much, and doesn't have anything to do with God's existence. It's a resultant. That's like me saying, God exists, and so I can go to Heaven. That doesn't change the round because i'm assuming God's existence to make an irrelevent argument.

Your Conclusion:
Wisdom and obedience are not in conflict. The Bible does not eliminate the search for truth, it expands it. You then argue that God does not exist because the only way to prove him true is faith. This is again a logical fallacy. You're trying to prove a negative absolute without any proof towards it. You're saying that my proof is necessarily false, so God DOES NOT exist. If you provided a proof showing he did not exist, than this would be true, but you can't say that he does not exist because my argument is wrong. Wisdom can be compatable with God's existence. Once the truth is found, the further conclusion simply proves this. Such as, an abstract absolute. They are accepted, but not every instance has been seen. The continued search for truth simply confirms their existence. You're arguing that God can't necessarily be proven, so he doesn't exist. This doesn't prove his non-existence, it simply provides a cloud.

Thank you for a great debate, and I'll be more than happy to debate anyone on this topic.
joze14rock

Con

I apologize for the late reply. I've been really busy.
I'm going to start off my final round with an outline over why my opponent has failed in this debate:
1) A theological (Christian) disconnect with his logical arguments for the existence of a God.
2) His failure to take into account the quotes and sources I cited
3) His failure to prove that the Bible and Philosophy are at odds with each other
4) His ignoring of my argument that Formal Logic is an insufficient source for argument, considering that the REAL world argues in Informally (everyday argumentation)
5) His failure to overturn my argument in which I state that Philosophy (Formal Logic and Wisdom) can only INFER the existence of God and not PROVE the existence of God.
6) His poor defense of the Christian Bible.

Christian God:
I understand that you may not have sufficient knowledge to prove the existence of another Religion's God. But when you give yourself the burden of proving ONE specific God, you add whole new negative dimensions to the debate that I don't have enough characters to refute. So instead I took the course of just disproving the tenants of an Omnipotent, thus Omniscient, God. Keep in mind since you wanted to give yourself such a burden in the beginning of this debate, I am not sure what kind of Christian/Biblical God you're arguing for! Every Christian Denomination has a different perspective on what God is! Some believe that God is omnipresent. Some don't. Some adhere to the Doctrine of the Trinity. Some others don't or revise it (e.g. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy). Your vague and troublesome burden that you implemented in this round is not fair for me, since I don't know what exactly your arguing for considering Christianity and the lack of "characters" I have for arguing against the Christian God. So I had to pretty much brush by on the whole Christian God thing, and just focus exclusively on omnipotent, omniscient GOD, without religious affiliation.

Formal Logic is not an appropriate way to argue :
While I'm really impressed by your knowledge of Formal Logic, I decided to take a different course in this debate; instead of showing you the atheistic counter arguments, I decided to just argue with you like any other person in the world, fallaciously, informally, and without Formal Logic. I didn't want this debate to go on a philosophical tangent, where all we do is argue in Formal Logic- that would be no fun and boring to voters. And like I said before, I don't have enough "characters" to outline the atheistic counter arguments and keep on to the arguments I propose in this debate. You completely disregard the quote from rhetorician Dr. Zarefsky (Round 2 argument) where he argues that Formal Logic is not a good way to argue in everyday talk. You also disregard my quote from logician Dr. Hall where he argues how religious folk don't argue with extravagant arguments (formal logic) because "they do not predicate their claim to know that God exists on the basis of such inferential argumentation." That is what Formal Logic is- INFERENTIAL: which completely shoots down your whole case, since all you argue for God is through Formal Argumentation. I'm sure you would enjoy an argument in Formal Logic- but that in itself is fallacious considering that God can only be inferred by such argumentation. Now, if you used Modal Logic, you would probably have a stronger case. But you don't, and I'm only concerned with the arguments you presented in this debate.

Not sufficient Proof:
My argument is completely acceptable or using Formal Logic jargon, "valid." God can be over thought for the reason that if the God you're arguing for is omnipotent and omniscient, he is infinite; beyond human comprehension. In that case, humans can create all these ideas, or hypothesis, on such a God. I'm sure you're aware of the ancient Christian Gnostics, who constructed their "Christian" God on totally different grounds than the Proto-Orthodox Christians (modern Christianity). God can be over thought. History and common sense shows why. You say:
"If we read some of the greatest logical proofs of all time, they are long and arduous, but nonetheless prove their meaning. (See Kant or Decartes)" Nonsense! Kant and Descartes understood that philosophy can only infer God.
"I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith."
–Immanuel Kant
Even Kant admitted that knowledge, philosophy, logic – all human means – cannot definitely prove the existence of God. Only mere faith can do so, and I've already given my brief analysis on what faith is (another debate in itself). Kant understood that the noumena realm, where God exists, can only be inferred by reason, and not definitely proved. (Dr. Daniel Robertson).
So what if William Ockham was a theist? I use his Ockham Razor, just like any other atheist would, for the means of showing that God cannot be proven by extravagant arguments, but simple means (i.e. Faith). I also quoted a Jewish Philosopher who says that Philosophy and the Bible are at odds with each other, and yet you disregard that point. You argue that God is prior to reason, and yet you try to prove God by reason (check out your whole Round)?Hypocritical or your confusing yourself.

Bible vs. Philosophy:
I'm going to reiterate my final argument. The Bible teaches obedient love. Philosophy teaches the pursuit of wisdom. Obedient Love and the Pursuit of Wisdom are at odds with each other. The Bible denies the pursuit of wisdom and demands humans to follow the commandments proclaimed by God through "Holy Scripture." For example, the eating of the apple from the Knowledge of Good and Evil represents the pursuit of wisdom, which God (YHWH) strictly forbids. As Jewish Philosopher Leo Strauss states:
"The Bible refuses to be integrated into a philosophical framework, just as philosophy refuses to be integrated into a biblical framework." The Christian God demands obedience, and only gives the freedom of wisdom to humans so they willingly follow God, instead of making creatures who are MADE to follow God (like Robots). This argument successfully proves that the Christian God cannot be affirmed by Wisdom, and only by faith (obedient love). So all Formal Logic, like that my opponent uses in this debate, is useless in this round. And in that case, the Bible is merely viewed as historical account of vague morality, superstition, and imagination.

Omnipotent/Omniscient God can only be inferred by Wisdom/Logic:
Since a God of these characteristics cannot be proven but only inferred by logic and wisdom, it follows that my opponent's case falls completely apart. Such a God is beyond human comprehension, and thus beyond human capabilities like wisdom and logic. An atheist can readily argue that man's imagination created such a God since he cannot be definitely proven. But since lack of characters to do so, I will just merely present this statement to the readers and voters. God is merely a concoction of humanity's brain to explain our place in the Universe.

Conclusion:
My opponent fails to prove the existence of God, under his criterion of what kind of God he cares to argue for. I have successfully overturned all his arguments and have presented the possibility for atheists to create their own explanations for man's reason to infer God (i.e. explain our place in the universe). I have also successfully showed how the Bible teaches against Wisdom, and the bible is merely a historical account of superstition, imagination, uncertainty, etc.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mike_BSU 7 years ago
Mike_BSU
I object to the con being a believer outside of debate. How are we to know that he is no achieving his own agenda by throwing the debate?
Posted by Fabian 8 years ago
Fabian
JESUS 0_0 thats the longest debate ive seen xd i got bored of readinh after the 2nd round......
Posted by joze14rock 8 years ago
joze14rock
Tatarize:

I love your sarcastic stupidity.
Well if you must use the term "wetnoodle"
then go ahead.

My goodness. How many times did I have to say it in the debate: I DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH CHARACTERS TO SHOW THE ATHEISTIC "COUNTER APOLOGETIC" REPLIES.
I can suggest some Atheist authors and philosophers who care to deal with countering the Formal Arguments of Apologetics:
Walter-Sinnott-Armstrong (in his famous debate with Christian Apologetic William Lane Craig)
The infamous Sam Harris
Check Out the Craig-Curley Debate.

Want more, let me know.
But let me reiterate again so your big whole in your brain doesn't spit out anymore ignorance:
I DIDN'T NOT WANT TO COUNTER EVERY SINGLE "EXISTENCE FOR GOD" ARGUMENT HE PRESENTED BECAUSE I HAD A BETTER ARGUMENT (FORMAL LOGIC IS INSUFFICIENT SOURCE AND IS ONLY INFERENCE & THE BIBLE AND WISDOM ARE AT ODDS WITH EACH OTHER) AND I DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH CHARACTERS TO LAY OUT THE ATHEISTIC ARGUMENTS<- I said this dozens of times in my debate. My opponent understood this and so he followed my form of argumentation.
Your just full of yourseslf that you can't see that.

Nor, do I agree with Christian Apologetics who use Formal Logic to prove the existence of God. I wholeheartedly disagree, and if that makes me an atheist
then so be it.

How about you stop being a puss* and challenge him to the same debate since you think your so superior.

And my friend, if you actually read THE WHOLE DEBATE, my arguments did not revolve on "The Bible is nonsense."
My points were well elaborated on and seperate from fallacious talk like "the Bible is nonesense."

I really find it bad character of a person (yourself) who belittles another person's intelligence.
So go grow up and learn how not to be pompous.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
A wet noodle is a noodle + water.

I don't think I have to point out specifics as to why. It suffices to point out that you did a horrible job. You don't understand the arguments or have any depth in counterapologetics and it shows. I'd be happy to accept a-theist's challenge at this same debate. However, that doesn't suggest for a moment that you did well. You did not.

As for constructive points, you should have refuted his arguments. He had several and you just sort of feigned strawman "Bible is nonsense" stance and thought that that qualified as a rebuttal.

-- Lame.
Posted by joze14rock 8 years ago
joze14rock
Tatarize:

I don't even know what the hell a wet noodle, and that is an actual term than I feel sorry for you using it.

No, my strategy was to refute everything my opponent claimed in his Round 1. He claimed he was trying to prove the biblical God, so I claimed the Bible was nonsense. We were more concerned on debating God, secularized, than God in the Christian sense. That's why I didn't have enough "characters" to go into detail about the Bible.

And while you keep telling me I was a "wet noodle" and I did a "horrific" job,

YOU STILL HAVE NOT SAID SPECIFICALLY WHY I DID A HORRIFIC JOB!

Like I said, BEFORE, if your crying so much on how bad I did, how about you shut up
and challenge A-Thiest dude.

Unless you have anything constructive to say, then just shut up. For real.

Who uses the word "Wet Noodle?"
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
You did badly. At least there's enough bias out there to make the voting go however, using the votes to suggest that your debate was any good is a joke. I've completely trounced people to win, and trounced them to lose. It really depends largely on the bias.

So you're strategy was to debate like a wet noodle and feign claims that the Bible is nonsense. *eye roll*

As for arguing the other side, I was defending that it was honest and could be done well and for advantage. The problem however is that you did a horrific job of it.
Posted by joze14rock 8 years ago
joze14rock
Tatarize:

And I do devoutly believe that Philosophy and the Bible are at odds with each other.

The only real reason to why I decided to be the Con in this debate was for that exact reason.
My opponent believed that Wisdom is supported in the Bible, which he outlined in his Round 1.

I disagree, so it was easy to be an atheist at that point- where all I do is claim the bible to be superstition etc. nonesense.

Don't judge me if you don't know what you're talking about.
Posted by joze14rock 8 years ago
joze14rock
Tatarize:

Shut Up.

Haven't you ever heard the phrase
"To know thy enemy, BE thy enemy?"

And as far as voters are concerned, you're full of bull and they disagree with your assessment. I believed I did a splendid job being a pseudo-atheist.

And to be completely honest, their are some atheist arguments that I find more compelling than the Theist argument.

Now if your crying so much, go challenge A-Thiest boy.

A-ThiestSocialist: exactly ;-) lol.
Posted by A-ThiestSocialist 8 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
haha very nice, bring up arguments that can be refuted in the last round so they can't be refuted.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Con debated like a limp noodle. SolaGratia is wrong that it's dishonest to debate for a position you don't hold. It's not only honest but honest debate. If you can pull off arguing for a topic you disagree with, THAT'S debate. For example, I've won arguments on Once Saved Always Saved and believe salvation to be poppycock and against Gay Marriage even though I think opposition to it are all ultimately grounded in bigotry.

The problem with Con wasn't intellectual dishonesty it was pathetic debating.

I mean solidly pathetic.

Voted Pro.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by UberCryxic 8 years ago
UberCryxic
A-ThiestSocialistjoze14rockTied
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 MarxistKid 8 years ago
MarxistKid
A-ThiestSocialistjoze14rockTied
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 VoterBot 8 years ago
VoterBot
A-ThiestSocialistjoze14rockTied
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 Fabian 8 years ago
Fabian
A-ThiestSocialistjoze14rockTied
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 chrispy4 8 years ago
chrispy4
A-ThiestSocialistjoze14rockTied
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 kenito001 8 years ago
kenito001
A-ThiestSocialistjoze14rockTied
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 Korezaan 8 years ago
Korezaan
A-ThiestSocialistjoze14rockTied
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 buckaroo54 8 years ago
buckaroo54
A-ThiestSocialistjoze14rockTied
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 erick1 8 years ago
erick1
A-ThiestSocialistjoze14rockTied
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 impactyourworld89 8 years ago
impactyourworld89
A-ThiestSocialistjoze14rockTied
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