The Instigator
bucsfan84
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mrparkers
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Does God exist ?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Mrparkers
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,042 times Debate No: 23383
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

bucsfan84

Pro

I will argue that God does exist..........

Round 1 accept
Mrparkers

Con

I accept.

I give the following for a definition of "God":

A conscious, personal being who created the universe and everything in it, and is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

Burden of proof:

Pro is required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that a God exists. This may be the Christian God, the Hindu God, a pagan God, or simply a God (as long as it fits with my definition). Pro should specify this in round 2.

Con is not required to prove that God does not exist, but simply to negate Pro's assertions. In this debate, I will only be defending the status quo.




That just about covers it. I look forward to this debate. Off to you, Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
bucsfan84

Pro

I know that theists are supposed to be the ones who believe myths. But the vast majority of atheists believe myths just as much or more than theists.

Argument atheist use:

"Atheists do not claim that God doesn't exist. They lack belief in God. The burden of proof for God is on the theist not the atheist."

This is a technicality that atheists use to try to put the burden on the other side. They claim that since "a-theism" means "without a belief in God", they are not claiming anything and therefore do not have to prove anything. They claim the burden of proof is on the theist who claims that God exists. This makes little difference either way because their core philosophy toward God is still the same. The reason why atheist emphasize this is to try to put themselves in an unattackable position. Its a semantic ploy to try to be consistent with it they will say "There is no evidence for God" rather than "God doesn't exist", but sometimes they slip up

Many atheists claim that atheism is the default position. They claim that when a person is born they are naturally atheists and that it is only through indoctrination that they become theists. But this claim is nothing more then an unsubstantiated opinion. How does an atheist know that people are not hardwired to believe in God ? How does an atheist know that children don't naturally believe in God and have to be taught not to believe in God ? Babies are atheist in the same way puppys are.

I explained my opening argument to show you(the audience) when an atheist makes arguments against theism they have the burden of proof the same as the theist does.
[Burden of proof: Each debater has the equal burden to prove the validity of his/her side of the resolution as a general principle. As the resolution is a statement of value, there is no presumption for either side.]
http://www.wdca.org...

My argumant:

Skeptics claim there is no evidence that any kind of spiritual realm exists. Scientific studies show the efficacy of intercessory prayer and the effects of religion on personal health. In addition there is evidence of a spiritual realm that is devoted to the promulgation of evil. An atheist is governed by two main principles: (1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and (2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated. Strong atheism states that there is no god even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence. The big bang theory states that the universe arose from a singularity of virtually no size, which gave rise to the dimensions of space and time, in addition to all matter and energy.

There is abundant evidence that the universe was designed by an intelligent being who purposed that the universe should exist and be capable of supporting advanced life. The design of the universe is just one line of evidence that tells us that God is real and created the universe. The design of the earth and solar system is also quite impressive. Likewise chemistry and physics preclude the possibility that life evolved on earth. Human beings are remarkably different from every other animal on earth, suggesting a departure from naturalistic processes.

http://www.godandscience.org...
http://carm.org...
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
http://www.bible.com...
http://irresistibledisgrace.wordpress.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Mrparkers

Con


The Burden of Proof

My opponent cites a website that outlines the conduct in Lincoln-Douglas debates, and he is essentially claiming that since the burden of proof is shared in Lincoln-Douglas debates, it must also be shared in this debate. You're probably thinking "This makes no sense". That's because it doesn't.

This isn't a Lincoln-Douglas debate. Look at the title of the debate and what my opponent said in the first round. My opponent is trying to argue that God exists. The source my opponent cited states: "Lincoln Douglas debate centers on a proposition of value, which concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what is." Is this a debate about values and what "ought to be"? No, this is a debate about whether or not God exists. As the Pro said in the first round, he is arguing that God exists. Thus, he is the one that is making the claim. The burden of proof lies on the party that is postulating the existence of something, and so the burden of proof lies solely on Pro.


My opponent's first "argument"

To begin the second round, my opponent guesses which arguments that he thinks I'm going to make and then he starts to address them as if I've already made said arguments. I'll make this easier for Pro and say that I wasn't planning on making any of these arguments, because this debate isn't about atheism vs. theism, it's about whether or not God exists. My opponent even assumes that I'm an atheist (you don't have to be an atheist to argue against the existence of God, plenty of Christians do it on here for fun).

Every single argument my opponent has said about atheism should be disregarded, for it does not pertain to the resolution whatsoever.


My opponent's second "argument"

I wasn't sure whether or not to rephrase the title of this paragraph, because my opponent thus far has failed to make even a single argument in support of the existence of God. First, Pro claims that there is evidence of a spiritual realm that is devoted to the promulgation of evil, and then fails to give supporting evidence. Second, Pro claims that "There is abundant evidence that the universe was designed by an intelligent being who purposed that the universe should exist and be capable of supporting advanced life", and again, fails to provide even a single piece of this evidence.


The resolution should be revised

With the Pro's permission, I would like the resolution to be revised to "The Christian God exists". My opponent has posted sources from Christian sources, so I think it is a fair assumption that my opponent believes in the Christian God (or at the very least, he is attempting to argue in favor of its existence). Please address this in your next round, Pro. If you don't address it, I'm going to assume that you agree with the revised resolution, and I will treat the rest of the debate as such.


To summarize Round 2:
  • My opponent spends half of his argument addressing atheism and its supposed flaws, which does not pertain to the resolution.
  • My opponent makes a few claims to justify his stance on the existence of God, and fails to give evidence, forcing you to reject said claims.
  • My opponent has attempted to share the burden of proof with me, but I have given a good enough reason to shift it to the Pro and the Pro alone.


The resolution has been negated.

Debate Round No. 2
bucsfan84

Pro

Many atheists have gotten stuck in a rut lately. The argument, "Atheism is the default position", has been irritatingly tossed about for quite a while, by countless atheists, none of whom have apparently sat down to think about what this statement really means.

To say atheism is the default setting, meaning everyone is born "atheist", is flawed. Atheism is a response to religion. It is a disbelief in god. It is not something one is born with. To hold a disbelief in something there must first have been a belief which existed. This belief may not have ever been held by the disbeliever, but it is a belief the disbeliever has heard of, examined, and chosen to ignore or discount as valid, or believable. So to be accurate, the default position that of a neutral human.

My OPP stated "My opponent even assumes that I'm an atheist (you don't have to be an atheist to argue against the existence of God, plenty of Christians do it on here for fun)." Which is laughable to say the least. For a Christian or any theist to argue against the existence of God is blasphemy.

My OPP stated "Every single argument my opponent has said about atheism should be disregarded, for it does not pertain to the resolution whatsoever." The simple answer to this is sure it does. My point was to show that the arguments against God cannot be assumed correct/true like many people do.

My argument:

Like I said......There is abundant evidence that the universe was designed by an intelligent being(God) who purposed that the universe should exist and be capable of supporting advanced life. The design of the universe is just one line of evidence that tells us that God is real and created the universe.

When considering the amazing beauty of nature, our own being, and the things around us, there are not many options to choose from. Either all of this is the product of intentional intelligent design, or it is not.

Considering the scientific discoveries of the past 100 years what makes more sense? You be the judge. If we can reasonably conclude, considering all the evidence, that there is significant evidence for intelligent design throughout the universe, then we must consider the possibility that an all-knowing, all powerful, personal Designer is behind it all. And we must come to grips with the implications of that.

A hundred years ago things were much different. No massive telescopes existed that allow us to peer back into the dawn of time. No theory of relativity. No satellites. Not even TV. But a lot has changed since 1905. Today is like no other time in history. At no other time in history do we have more evidence from science concerning the fine tuning of our universe.

So, what does this have to do With God ? Among all the ancient peoples of the world, only the Hebrews wrote of a God outside of space and time, a transcendent all powerful creator God. Other peoples believed in a magical, eternal universe that gave birth to gods. Many confused the universe and the gods, attributing to the universe and nature god-lie characteristics (this sort of philosophy continues even today with new age thought and eastern mysticism). In contrast, the Hebrews wrote of an eternal, transcendent creator outside of space and time who gave the universe its beginning. This is precisely the world view science now confirms to us.

Given that there is a large amount of evidence for intelligent design in the universe, we can reasonably conclude.
That an all powerful, all knowing, Designer is responsible certainly NOT chance, and certainly not the universe itself.
That he made the universe, and all that is within it for the purpose of creating and sustaining this jewel of a planet we call Earth and us, the apex of his creation. That he continues to sustain his creation in accordance with the laws of physics he has established. That he is actively engaged with his creation, and that he has a plan and purpose for it. Who is he ? His name is God.

http://carm.org...
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
http://www.godandscience.org...
Mrparkers

Con

The Burden of Proof

In the last round, I explained why I am not required to prove that God does not exist, and my opponent did not seem to disagree in this latest round. By not responding to what I said, I will assume that he is agreeing with the burden of proof that I have lined up for this debate. The burden of proof lies solely on the Pro. As the Con, I am only required to negate the arguments given by the Pro. I am only defending the null hypothesis.


What is the null hypothesis?

In the last round, my opponent addressed arguments that I did not even make. I'm not even sure if my opponent is even bothering to read anything I'm typing, otherwise he wouldn't be trying to fight a claim that I never even made. Regardless, he did mention one thing that I'd like to discuss in order to solidify the burden of proof.

My opponent talks about how atheism is not the default position, or rather, the website that my opponent copied and pasted this argument from talks about how atheism is not the default position (my opponent copied this argument from http://isgodasquirrel.blogspot.com...). The website that my opponent plagiarized from is wrong.

When atheists say that "atheism is the default position", they aren't claiming that babies everywhere are born thinking that "God does not exist". Such a claim would be completely ridiculous. The website my opponent copied this argument from is missing the point entirely. By saying that "Atheism is the default position", people are simply saying that atheism is the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis (definition provided by Wikipedia [1]), is "a hypothesis that typically corresponds to a general or default position. For example, the null hypothesis might be that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena. It is typically paired with a second hypothesis, the alternative hypothesis, which asserts a particular relationship between the phenomena." When someone offers a claim, such as "I have a hundred dollars in my pocket", "Bigfoot ate my sister", or "God exists", they are offering an alternative hypothesis. Because of this, it is up to the person making the alternative hypothesis to give evidence to support it. It is assumed that the null hypothesis is true unless enough evidence can be given to the contrary.

It's important to note that the null hypothesis can never be proven. You can only use evidence or data to reject the null hypothesis or fail to reject it. This is exactly what atheism is: the null hypothesis. It is assumed there is no God until it can be proven that one exists. If the website that my opponent copied his argument from was correct, then we would be assuming that a claim (alternative hypothesis) is true until it is proven false. In other words, we'd assume Bigfoot exists until it was proven that he doesn't, and we'd assume that a microscopic celestial teapot was orbiting the earth[2] until it is proven not to exist. Clearly, assumptions like these are ill-formed, which is why we assume the null hypothesis is true until there is enough evidence to reject it.


Addressing the arguments given by my opponent

Like my opponent's argument about atheism not being the default position, this next argument given by my opponent is completely plagiarized from a website. Here is the original source: http://www.evidencetobelieve.net...
If I were my opponent, I would have picked a better website to plagiarize from, because throughout the entire text my opponent copied, not a single argument was made in support of the existence of God.

In this round, my opponent simply did what he did in the second round: offered claims with absolutely no evidence to back them up. My opponent claimed that there is an abundance of evidence for intelligent design, yet failed to provide any. In the words of Christopher Hitchens: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence".


My argument:


C1: Non-belief


To restate the definition that I offered for "God" (which my opponent has not attacked): A conscious, personal being who created the universe and everything in it, and is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

If a God like this really existed, then why is this debate even happening in the first place? Why are we even speculating about the existence of God? Isn't it strange that this God supposedly consciously created all of us and wants to have a personal relationship with each and every one of us, but yet there are people out there (like me) who simply do not believe that he exists? Of all things for us not to know about the universe we inhabit, why does this happen to be one of them?

People who defend the existence of a God often tell others that God put them on this planet so they could spread the message to all of mankind. That never made sense to me; if God wanted every person in the world to know that he exists, then why doesn't he just make us all know? After all, he is supposed to be all powerful. If God REALLY wants us to know that he exists, then why don't I?

The answer is quite simple. The existence of non-belief contradicts the idea that God even exists in the first place.

Premise 1: If God exists, he is all powerful. He has the power to convince me that he exists.
Premise 2: If God exists, he is all knowing. He knows how best to convince me of his existence.
Premise 3: If God exists, he is all loving. He wants me to be convinced that he exists.
Premise 4: Given 1, 2, and 3, if God exists, I should be convinced of his existence.
Premise 5: I am not convinced of God's existence.
Conclusion: Given 4 and 5, God does not exist.


To summarize:

The burden of proof falls of the Pro, and so far he has failed to provide a shred of evidence to support the claims that he made (or, to be fair, the claims the website that Pro copied from made). Even though I am only required to negate the Pro's assertions, I have provided an argument against the existence of God as I have defined him. In light of this, the resolution has been negated.


Citations:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 3
bucsfan84

Pro

bucsfan84 forfeited this round.
Mrparkers

Con

Extend arguments. Pro fails to meet BOP by not providing a single argument in support of the resolution.

Vote CON for CONduct.
Debate Round No. 4
bucsfan84

Pro

bucsfan84 forfeited this round.
Mrparkers

Con

Extend arguments.

Vote con!
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by mecap 4 years ago
mecap
Some massive copy-pasta on Pro's side: http://isgodasquirrel.blogspot.com...

Pathetic!!!
Posted by philippines1946 4 years ago
philippines1946
Con wins this debate by a knock out, the act of forfeiting is acceptance of defeat.
Posted by philippines1946 4 years ago
philippines1946
bucsfan84 clearly addressed the faults of atheism but not the existence of a God, his statement is to criticize the personal stand of his opponent pursuing him to change his mind but the evidences he has provided for the existence of that being is vague.
Posted by TheDiabolicDebater 4 years ago
TheDiabolicDebater
I would accept but you are probably going to forfeit again.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by K.GKevinGeary 4 years ago
K.GKevinGeary
bucsfan84MrparkersTied
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: Spelling both are fine if i could read it, conduct obvious, arguments again obvious, though i have a strong bias on the subject but irelevant con on this debate gets the arguments, premises well done in logic.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 4 years ago
Buckethead31594
bucsfan84MrparkersTied
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: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
bucsfan84MrparkersTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF