The Instigator
stubs
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
ParagonProtege
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points

Does the Christian God Exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/22/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,583 times Debate No: 17188
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (7)

 

stubs

Pro

1st round is for acceptance
ParagonProtege

Con

Hello stubs!

Thank you for the debate. It's my first debate on this website, so I hope it goes well. But even though I'm new, don't go easy (=

If I understand correctly, your opening post goes before mine. I look forward to reading it! Best of luck to you and may the best arguments win.
Debate Round No. 1
stubs

Pro

This is only my second debate so I sure do not have much of an experience advantage! haha. Good Luck to you as well.
In this debate I will defend two basic arguments.
1. There is no good reasons to believe the Christian God does not exist.
2. There are good reasons to believe the Christian God does exist.

Now I have never heard a good argument for claiming God does not exist, so I will leave it up to you to come up with the arguments. The claim that God does not exist, is just as much of a claim that God does exist. Therefore, If you believe that the evidence points in the direction of atheism you must disprove my claims, and provide convincing evidence for yours.

Here are a few of my opening arguments for the existence of God.
1. How did the universe begin if it was not by God? From an atheistic standpoint you will either have to believe the universe is infinitely old or that something came from nothing. Now the universe cannot possibly be infinite because if it is, how many events occurred in the past. Well your answer would have to be an infinite amount. Well that cannot possibly be true because infinity is just an idea. If you say the universe came from nothing, well scientifically that doesn't makes sense because we all know that out of nothing comes nothing. So my question to you is do you have an explanation of how the universe began that is more probably then the one I propose of God creating the universe.

2. The complexity of the Universe. Stephen Hawking said that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball. Also, British physicist P.C.W. Davies has concluded that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for the formation of stars, which are necessary for planets and thus life, is a one followed by at lease a thousand billion billion zeros. Davies also said that if the strength of gravity were changed by only one part in 10^100 life could never have developed. For comparison there is only 10^80 atoms in the entire known universe. These probabilities are also in tune with eachother, meaning it is improbability multiplied by improbability multiplied by improbability until they are unimaginably small numbers.

3. The Life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus. If Jesus did rise from the dead than it must be explained as a divine miracle. You may say that the resurrection is something people either believe in by faith or simply do not. I would argue there is evidence that the resurrection did in fact happen. One would be the empty tomb. Most scholars believe the tomb was in fact empty. Second, Jesus appearance to people after death including his disciples, and enemies. Thirdly, the disciples belief in Jesus raising from the dead even though that is contrary to their initial Jewish beliefs. The Jews did not believe in a rising Messiah, much less one that would die. They were so convinced that they were willing to die for that truth. The arguments that the disciples hid Jesus' body or that He was never really dead, has been universally reject by scholars.

In conclusion I believe that the evidence clearly points towards the existence of God and not the atheistic standpoint.
ParagonProtege

Con

Introduction


In this argument, my opponent is asserting the proposition that “the Christian god exists.” Before assessing the truth value – or lack thereof – in his proposition, I am first going to outline a loose methodological framework by which we can examine the aforementioned proposition. My goal in outlining this framework is to make our debate more unbiased so that the conclusions we arrive at are more accurate. I will not have enough room to address my opponent's arguments here, though in my next post I will be able to.


The Methodology


Before addressing the content of my opponent's arguments, I ask this: what should be our intellectual predisposition towards the claim? Idealistically, our predisposition should be completely neutral and our minds void of any predetermined conclusions. Our conclusions about the claim should then only be derived from the examination of reason and evidence about the claim. This ideal lack of predisposition is useful ensuring that our conclusions are directly drawn from the evidence and our reasoning.

Unfortunately, such an unbiased perspective is impossible to achieve due to inherent analytical flaws in the human brain. An entire field of science is devoted this study of biases and heuristics. Though I cannot give a remedial course to those not familiar with the science during the course of the debate, I will now explain in brief how these biases and heuristics come to affect our analysis of religious claims and what steps should be taken because of it. I encourage both my opponent and the readers of the debate to read the works I cite for a fuller understanding of this essential scientific field.


As a natural function of the human mind, all of us first believe what we were raised by our parents, community, and culture to believe. Regardless of the truth value of the assertion being inflicted on the child, the child will accept it. This process includes religion. To quote Dr. Jason Long's essay “The Malleability of the Human Mind”:


“It should not be a shocking discovery that parents pass on their religious beliefs through their children. Muslim parents tend to have Muslim children, Christian parents tend to have Christian children, Hindu parents tend to have Hindu children. A child's environment must affect his religious affiliation to an extensive degree.” (Long 66)


Thus – as John Loftus argues in his essay "The Outsider Test for Faith Revisted" – otherwise "[r]ational people in distinct geographical locations around the globe overwhelmingly adopt and defend a wide diversity of religious faiths due to their upbringing and cultural heritage” (Loftus 82). Loftus terms this the Religious Diversity Thesis (Loftus 82). More information on the precise psychological mechanisms and the anthropological/sociological proof of this is contained within the aforementioned essay by Dr. Long and the essays “The Cultures of Christianities” and “Christian Belief Through the Lens of Cognitive Science,” written by Dr. David Eller and Dr. Valerie Tarico, respectively. The references for these essays are contained within my Bibliography.


Loftus continues his argument Religious Dependency Thesis that “[c]onsequently, it seems very likely that adopting one's religious faith is not merely a matter of independent rational judgment but is casually dependent on cultural conditions to an overwhelming degree” (Loftus 82). To clarify, this does not necessarily mean that all of our current religious, moral, and political beliefs are culturally relative, though this is argued by Dr. Eller in “Christianity Does Not Provide The Basis For Morality.” But, I do not need to go as far as Dr. Eller in this regard “because even if humans can and do rationally transcend their respective cultures, it changes very little about the odds of doing so” (Loftus 104).


Furthermore, given the Religious Diversity Thesis and the Religious Dependency Thesis, “the odds are highly likely that any adopted religious faith is false[....] So the best way to test one's adopted religious faith is from the perspective of an outsider with the same level of skepticism used to evaluate other religious faiths” (Loftus 82). This is the basic expression of Loftus' Outsider Test for Faith (OTF).


I apologize for what may seem to some like excessive quoting, but for this particular piece of the argument, it is essential that we hear the words of experts in numerous field. To summarize the Outsider Test for Faith so that I can confidentially move on to other aspects of the debate, I will quote Lotus on the OFT once more, this time from “"It's Time Once Again Boys and Girls for The Outsider Test for Faith”:



“As children we believed whatever our parents told us, all of us[....] We were raised in our respective families and cultures to believe what our parents told us about religion[....] Psychological studies have shown that people have a very strong tendency to believe what they prefer to believe.[....] Psychological studies have shown that most of us, most of the time, look for that which confirms what we believe rather than that which disconfirms it[....] Neurological studies have shown that people have a sense of certainty about the beliefs they have that is unrelated to the strength of the actual evidence[....] Skepticism is not usually an inherited characteristic. We must acquire the capacity to doubt what we are raised to believe. Skepticism is the adult attitude.” (Loftus 1).

To put it in context, in order for my opponent to meet his burden of proof, thus proving his positive claim, thus winning the debate, we must examine his claim with skeptical eyes and accept it if and only when he can provide proof that would be enough to convince a rational person who is not a Christian beyond a reasonable doubt. What form would that evidence take?


First, my opponent must define his terms such as “Christian god?” and “exist?” While we all share the same fuzzy meaning of these terms, it is essential to have precise language.


Second, his proposition must survive deductive reasoning through formal logic. While we do not need the symbols of Kurt Godel, Greek syllogisms can suffice. By this I mean, his argument must be internally consistent and logically possible. If his claim is logically impossible, then we can disregard it since we know that what cannot exist does not exist.


Third, my opponent must provide empirical evidence in support of his argument. Citing as relevant sources, of course. Moreover, he must hold a preponderance of such evidence and – as I previously discussed – our certainty that his proposition is true is in proportion to the net favorable evidence he is able to provide. A systematic explanation of why this is logically the case cannot be done justice here, though for those interested, I suggest reviewing Probability Theory, specifically Bayes' Theorem.


Thank you for reading, and I look forward to the rebuttal.


Bibliography

Eller, David. "Christianity Does Not Provide The Basis For Morality." The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails. Ed. John W. Loftus. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2010. 347-367. Print.


Eller, David. "The Cultures of Christianities." The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails. Ed. John W. Loftus. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2010. 25-46. Print.


Loftus, John W. "It's Time Once Again Boys and Girls for The Outsider Test for Faith." Debunking Christianity. 10 June 2011. Web. 23 June 2011. <http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com...;.


Loftus, John W. "The Outsider Test for Faith Revisited." The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails. Ed. John W. Loftus. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2010. 81-106. Print.


Long, Jason. "The Malleability of the Human Mind." The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails. Ed. John W. Loftus. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2010. 65-80. Print.


Tarico, Valerie. "Christian Belief Through the Lens of Cognitive Science." The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails. Ed. John W. Loftus. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2010. 47-64. Print.

Debate Round No. 2
stubs

Pro

"So the best way to test one's adopted religious faith is from the perspective of an outsider with the same level of skepticism used to evaluate other religious faiths"
One thing I want to point out is the fact that, generally speaking, if you set out to find something you will find it. If you like at the members involved in the Jesus Seminar they were a group of skeptics who thought that the historical Jesus only said a little of what is actually recorded in the Bible. And that is what they found. However they were under false pretenses. Such as they said Jesus could not have said anything a Rabbi would have already said and Jesus could not say anything that sounds like it would have came formed the early church. The problem with this is that Jesus was Jewish and He did basically form the early Christian church. Therefore, it is clear that they found what they wanted to find only because they did not look at the facts from a reasonable perspective.

You then went on to say, "My goal in outlining this framework is to make our debate more unbiased so that the conclusions we arrive at are more accurate."
I would agree with this, and I think that from an unbiased position even you will admit that, just threw that second round, there was more evidence for God than against God.

I would also agree with the statement that Christian parents tend to have Christian kids and Muslims tend to have Muslim kids ect. However I don't think that does anything to prove which one is right or wrong. I would also say that there are many people who claim to be Muslim but really don't even know what it means to be Muslim. This is because a lot of Muslims cannot even read their holy book the Qur'an. This is because they believe that when it is translated, it is not the real Qur'an anymore. Therefore any Muslim that cannot read Arabic usually does not even know the religion they are practicing. So I would say that there are a lot of Muslims who are only Muslims because of their parents, but Christianity has been translated into a lot of languages, and if you are making the argument that the Greek translated into English is not a good representation of the true meaning, I would strongly argue against that point. My conclusion for this point would be that there are a lot of Muslims who do not understand their religion and are only Muslim threw faith that their parents know what they are talking about. However, I would say Christianity is not like that because, looking at the facts, I believe there is plenty of evidence for the Christian God.

I'm not sure exactly how you want me to define those words. For Christian God I simply mean the one that is in the Christian Bible. I'm also not sure how you want me to define exist so I will allow you to go ahead and do that if you choose too. I apologize because I did not think it would be confusing.

In my opponent's last argument, I do not think that he either: provided any evidence against the existence of God, nor did he refute any of my claims (Creation of the universe, Fine tuning,
Resurrection). That is why I did not bring up any new points for him to have to argue. However, I'm sure he will in the next round so I look forward to hearing that.
ParagonProtege

Con

On my Opponent's Responses to the Outsider Test for Faith

My opponent said, “One thing I want to point out is the fact that, generally speaking, if you set out to find something you will find it.” I completely agree, which is why the OTF is so essential. The technical term for what he's talking about is Confirmation Bias: People tend to believe that they want to believe, people tend to want to believe what they already believe, and people come to their original beliefs for non-intellectual reasons. The OTF is expressly designed to counter this bias.

My adversary then made allegations about the Jesus Seminar and did not provided proof to substantiate them. Given his lack of citation, I can only take it as hearsay and ask the readers to regard it as such.

My opposition then made a lot of other uncited claims about translations of the Bible and whether or not Christians – unlike Muslims – have good arguments to justify their belief. The former is, of course, unsubstantiated and irrelevant while the latter I addressed in the seventh paragraph of my opening. If there is enough reason and evidence to show the existence of the Christian god, that is all good and well. But that evidence must overcome the standards of the OTF.


Rebuttals my Opponent's Arguments on the Existence of God

My opponent claimed, “I think that from an unbiased position even you will admit that, just threw that second round, there was more evidence for God than against God.” I do not agree with this. He certainly made many for arguments for the existence of god than I made for the non existence of god, but that was due to the necessity of establishing proper standards of debate and a limited number of words allowed. I will now begin to debunk my opponent's arguments. But I must say at the forefront, with all due respect to him, he has made several logical fallacies and even more unsubstantiated claims. Given that it takes much more time and space to debunk a claim than to assert one, I may not be able to address and fully debunk each and every one of them. This is not a reflection of the arguments, but a indicator of how many fallacious arguments he supplied.


Refuting the Cosmological Argument

This is a response to my opponent's argument that begins with, "How did the universe begin if it was not by God?" It's disappointing that my opponent here displays a lack of knowledge of physics and logical reasoning. In brief, the argument is that everything that exists has a cause, therefore the universe has a cause, the cause of the universe is the Christian god. This form of creationism fails on several levels. For example, it doesn't address who created god, and unanswered question which causes an infinite regress of "creator gods," not solving the initial alleged problem of infinite regress. Or if god doesn't need to be created, then the first premise that everything needs a cause is therefore invalidated. There are other fallacies within this argument as well, such as the false dichotomy of "everything came from nothing" v. "the universe is infinitely old." Such sophistic tricks - such as the argument from ignorance - are not positive evidence for the existence of anything.

But thankfully, due to the continual advances of modern science, we are increasing of knowledge of how the universe began. Like with biases and heuristics, this is not a place where I can properly teach a remedial course in theoretical Physics. For a brief primer on this topic, I recommend the lecture "A Universe from Nothing" by Dr. Lawrence Krauss. In short, to answer the question of how the universe began is a worthy pursuit, but has nothing to do with god. The lecture can be found here:


Refuting the Fine Tuning Argument

This is a response to my opponent's argument that begins with, "The complexity of the Universe." I say this with all due respect, but I am again saddened that my opponent is speaking about Probability Theory and Physics without having an understanding of these fields of study. Here, my opponent quote mines certain facts from legitimate scientists such as Dr. Hawking - assuming these scientists actually said those things, as he doesn't cite his works where he got this information - and throws big numbers around, and claims that all of these things happening together are improbable and thus impossible without god. This - another argument from ignorance - is absurd to anyone versed in the actual science. Furthermore, anyone knowledgeable how dangerous and deadly the universe is to human beings also knows this is absurd, especially if a loving god supposedly created it. This lack of scientific evidence is why my opponent has not cited any peer reviewed scientific papers to back his is supposed claims of science. As I said before, I cannot give a remedial course in Physics here. It isn't my burden of proof to teach my fields of study in order to correct his uncited assertions. For those interested in learning the facts of the matter, I recommend the work of Dr. Victor J. Strenger such as the paper "Is the Universe Fined Tune for Us?" in which he says

"The ancient argument from design for the existence of God is based on the common intuition that the universe and life are too complex to have arisen by natural means alone. However, as philosopher David Hume pointed out in the eighteenth century, the fact that we cannot explain some phenomenon naturally does not allow us to conclude that it had to be a miracle."

It can be found here:
www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf

Refuting the Resurrection Argument

Here, my opponent again makes allegation after allegation without providing any proof or citations. We know that – with the OTF – we must be skeptical of his claims, primarily that the character of Jesus existed at all, never mind that his supposed tomb was empty or the uncited argument from popularity about what “most scholars believe” to be the case. I cannot here give another remedial course in ancient history and the historical method, especially just in response to my opponents unsupported, generalized assertions. As I said previously, I simply do not have the room to debunk in full each and everyone of his allegations as it could take a paragraph to address each sentence. If my opponent would like to debate some smaller sub-section of his allegations in proper detail, then that debate can be arranged. But his scatter shot approach to trying to prove the existence of a deity is not effective. Rather, it is indicative of the Confirmation Bias which we discussed earlier. On this specific topic of the ahistoricity of Jesus Christ, I recommend the work of the expert historian and philosopher Dr. Richard Carrier in books such as Not the Impossible Faith.


Recap of the Debate Thus Far

With the space I have left, I do not have the room to delve into my arguments for why deities cannot and thus do not exist. This presentation will come in my next post in this debate. With the remaining space I have left, I will summarize the debate thus far.

  • As expressed by the Outsider test for Faith, my opponent has the burden of proof in this matter and we must view his claims with skepticism in order to come to the most accurate conclusion.
  • My opponent has provided three arguments for the existence of god which are riddled with logical fallacies (such as the argument from ignorance and argument from popularity), misinformation (such as his creation of false dilemmas on the beginning of the universe), and uncited scientific and historical claims.
  • I cannot debunk these arguments in full given the space I have, though I have addressed the arguments in general and (unlike my opponent) I provided sources for my information and for further study.
Debate Round No. 3
stubs

Pro

My arguments about the Jesus Seminar came from the book The Case For Christ written by Lee Strobel. One of the top New Testament scholars. He is also one of the top journalists, but of course if you have read any reliable books on either the creation of the universe, the life of Jesus, or anything of that sort you would have heard his name so I do not feel that the sources I used were unreliable. Also my quotations about the fine tuning come from Strobels book The Case For Faith. And as I said before I don't think you will find many educated scholars, if any at all, who would say Lee Strobel is an unreliable source of information.

My opponent asked who created God. God is infinite therefore, does not need a creator. That is one of the basic beliefs of the Christian faith, so either you are trying to make me waist time arguing this point, or you know hardly anything in regards to the Christian Faith. The premise is that every effect has a cause. God is not an effect therefore does not need a cause.

I also listened to some of the video you posted, I apologize for not watching all of it but it was simply too long and I do not think he was getting anywhere close to explaining how the universe actually began. If I could just ask you one question. What was the first thing in the universe, and how did it get there. My answer would be God, and He has always been there because He is an eternal, changeless being. I just want to know if you can come up with an answer that seems more logical than that.

In the place where you were supposed to refute my fine tuning argument you did talk a lot about how I did not cite my sources and how it is "absurd to anyone who actually knows science." But for some reason you could not actually refute my claim that the probabilities of life coming into existence without an intelligent designer is too small, for anyone with common sense, to even comprehend. Let alone put faith in the fact that it did happen.

You used the quote: "The ancient argument from design for the existence of God is based on the common intuition that the universe and life are too complex to have arisen by natural means alone. However, as philosopher David Hume pointed out in the eighteenth century, the fact that we cannot explain some phenomenon naturally does not allow us to conclude that it had to be a miracle." I would agree that just because we cannot explain something naturally, that does not mean that it has to be supernatural. I'm just asking is it easier to believe that God, an Intelligent Designer, created the universe, or all mathematical odds just happen to work themselves out? I at least, do not have any problem judging those probabilities.

It seems as though my opponent has taken the curious standpoint that Jesus never existed. There are only a few intelligent scholars that would deny the existence of a historical Jesus. If Jesus never existed how would the disciples even come up with the story of the resurrection and why would so many of them be willing to die for their faith? There are simply too many arguments that a historical Jesus existed to list here. Also, there are only a few scholars who reject it so I feel it would be ridiculous to even debate it.

When you talked about the outsider test of faith I want you to listen to wait Kai Neilson, an atheist philosopher, said, "To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false. All the proofs of God's existence may fail, but it still maybe the case that God exist." So if you want to prove God does not exist you must not only refute all of my arguments, but also make arguments against God that I cannot refute.
You said my arguments had "logical fallacies" but I don't see anywhere in your last argument that you actually list a logical fallacy that is actually valid. You also did not refute my arguments. You simply wrote a paragraph for each claiming there were "logical fallacies" (none of which i would agree with) and moved on.

You also gave me no evidence against the existence of God.
ParagonProtege

Con

As I have previously pointed out, my opponent is engaging in sophistry. Up until this last round, he gave me no citiations for his claims, and still has not cited scientific papers for his scientific claims about Physics. The work by Strobel is just cited is not properly done, and I - nor the readers - have the responsibility to go shifting through entire books to confirm an allegation my opponent is making. Compare this to my claims, which I have properly cited the works of experts in the various fields Further, contrary to his claims, I have specified what logical fallacies he is making, such as the argument from ignorance, quote mining, argument from popularity, trying to define god into existence through the Cosmological Argument, and - in this latest post - argument from adjective and authority. When I provided scientific sources to refute his claims, he admits that he doesn't review them in full. He also makes allegations that I am not familiar with Christian doctrine, and as a former Christian apologist this is certainly not the case. Moreover, he claims I am not address his arguments when, in fact, he has made so many claims that to do so within the limited space given is impossible. This, ladies and gentlemen, this is a textbook example of sophistry.

With this in mind, I will not waste more time on his tricks. I have addressed the methodology through the OTF and I have addressed his claims through the citation of proper scientific sources. If this was a real debate, would now move onto the third and final part of my presentation: Arguments which prove the gods cannot exist. I would make these arguments regardless of my not having a burden of proof just to further show the strength of my position.

Yet, I refuse to further engage with this 'debate' and thus withdraw. I refuse to give what is so blatantly sophistic tricks, logical fallacies, and blind assertions the facade of legitimate argumentation.
Debate Round No. 4
stubs

Pro

I did not cite correctly simply because I don't do these debates in order to win, or get points for doing things correctly. I do them so that people can see faith in God is not blind faith, and that it is a reasonable faith. You said you have refuted my claims and I believe that I have talked to people that, while I don't agree with all that they say, have argued my claims better than you have. About not watching all of that video, it was an hour long and up until about the 30minute mark it only gave me information that I either all ready knew or was irrelevant. I don't want to watch an hour long lecture like that, I'm a kid who hasn't even graduated high school yet, I have things I would much rather be doing haha.

Throughout all of my arguments I have never tried to trick you. I have used these points while talking with other atheist and they debate with me but never has anyone said I was trying to trick them. I apologize if you feel that way.

Even throughout this debate you did not give me one reason that I should not believe in God and I do not believe you clearly refuted my claims. I couldn't care less about getting points for grammar, citations ect. I just want people to see that faith in God is not just blind faith.
ParagonProtege

Con

As my last post in this debate, I would like to note that John Loftus - creator of the OTF - linked to this debate on his site

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com...

I'm really suprised and honored that he linked to it. Thanks a lot, John! I hope I did it justice. If anyone is interested in learning more about the Outsider Test for Faith and other counter-apologetics, please check out his website and books.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by unitedandy 3 years ago
unitedandy
Reading through some of the voting, I'm amazed that the typical comment is that the atheist has the BOP from the off. Also, Loftus' book is pretty highly recommended, but as Pop pointed it, one can't disprove God with the OTF. I think the debate ran out of steam by R3.
Posted by popculturepooka 3 years ago
popculturepooka
Uhhhh, the otf has nothing to do with the Christian God's existence and everything to do with the rationality of believing in the Christian God...
Posted by Meatros 3 years ago
Meatros
You all give the Loftus cites a hard time, but not the Strobel ones?

I think your biases are showing. ;-)
Posted by Dimmitri.C 3 years ago
Dimmitri.C
Hahaha, Loftus is a terrible counter-apologist.
Posted by Davididit 3 years ago
Davididit
Rofl...I can't believe you take that guy seriously. Loftus is fail.
Posted by Dunia.M 3 years ago
Dunia.M
John Loftus? LOL!
Posted by awatkins69 3 years ago
awatkins69
John Loftus? LOL!
Posted by izbo10 3 years ago
izbo10
lol pro actually quote mines a guy who said there is no need for god, really?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 3 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
stubsParagonProtegeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ran an external argument and was fairly condescending.
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 3 years ago
popculturepooka
stubsParagonProtegeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side fulfilled their burden of proof.
Vote Placed by Dimmitri.C 3 years ago
Dimmitri.C
stubsParagonProtegeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Paragon used his last round to let everyone know that some pop-theologian linked his debate on his website. Paragon is bias in what constitutes as evidence. Paragon merely asserts propositions by doubting the veracity of the said proposition without justification. Paragon failed to establish an argument and properly refute Stubs main contention. Try sticking to the main contention of the debate, Paragon. Next time you will do a greater job.
Vote Placed by awatkins69 3 years ago
awatkins69
stubsParagonProtegeTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: counter vote bomb
Vote Placed by izbo10 3 years ago
izbo10
stubsParagonProtegeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: ignorant christians burden of proof is on the positive claim not the response to the positive claim.
Vote Placed by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
stubsParagonProtegeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Reasons for voting decision: Both did very very well, but Con did not logically disprove the existence of God, which was his BOP. 4:3 to pro
Vote Placed by LeoL 3 years ago
LeoL
stubsParagonProtegeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Reasons for voting decision: Paragon was unable to prove that the christian god does not exist, and he oftenly went off topic. He rebutted stubs arguments, and even if they succeeded, Paragon didn't explain why the christian god does not exist. A word of advice for Paragon, he could have easily won this debate if he didn't get so off topic and he focused only on the resolution. He thought that just because he didn't have the BOP, he didn't have to construct a reason for god not existing.