Does god exist?
Debate Rounds (4)
If you are going to ask me about who created god, here is the response : God isn't a material creation. God is a spirit. if god needed a creator, a designer, god just wouldn't be god.
But if we look at it closely, the theory of creationism surprisingly ressembles the big bang and the creation of humans. A"day" would be a time period.
God separates day and night. The big bang
God separate the sky from the earth. The creation of matter.
God creates the land and stars, etc. ( 2 days together ) The formation of planets.
God create animals. Appearance of life.
God creates humans. Evolution
According to me, the bible is only a human reinterpretation of what actually happened. Just think about it. There might be some sort of vision humans had to get these ideas
Pro's supporting argument: Genesis 1 can be interpreted as a timeline of the universe.
1. You missed out plants, on the 3rd day. Since plants don't predate planets, your timeline fails.
2. Genesis 1 doesn't prove anything, as it could just be fictional.
3. You have not provided a reason why the universe's complexity requires a creator.
Pro has failed to meet his burden of proof. I can't meet mine until he meets his, because science is enormous and thus I need to tailor my points to Pro's. Also, because I have a 750 character limit. Seriously, what's up with that?
Two rounds left. Pro has to meet BOP in Round 3, or else he loses the debate.
Hamalish forfeited this round.
Hamalish forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SirMaximus 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better conduct, because Pro forfeited 2 rounds, but Con didn't forfeit any rounds. I understood both of them pretty well, so they tie for spelling and grammar. As for arguments, Pro merely stated that everything needs a designer, and that the Biblical account of Creation might not contradict The Big Bang Theory and The Theory of Evolution. Pro doesn't explain why everything needs a designer, and Pro doesn't give evidence that the Bible is true. Pro merely states that the Bible might not conflict with certain scientific theories as some people claim, which is just a response to a claim, not a claim in itself. Con says that he can't meet his BOP (burden of proof) until Pro meets Pro's burden of proof, but why? Con says that it's because "science is enormous and thus [he] need[s] to tailor [his] points to Pro's", but I'm not sure that I understand this. Why can't Con make his own argument against God's existence just because Pro hasn't yet? Neither used any sources, so they tie.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.