The Instigator
Smarticle01
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Genghis_Khan
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Does the God of the Bible exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
Genghis_Khan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 360 times Debate No: 73678
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

Smarticle01

Pro

1st round is just to accept the challenge.
Genghis_Khan

Con

I accept. GL.
Debate Round No. 1
Smarticle01

Pro

I will start off my argument with a very well known statement in this topic. "There is a basis of ethics and morality." now if you have read the book Mere Christianity you may be familiar with this statement. If not you are probably thinking I am throwing out a red herring. You will have to bear with me here for it is a long process before I get to the conclusion that there is a God and that God is the god of the bible.

So I will first start of with a statement that I hope everyone would agree with me. Lets say the most strong atheist buys a new Ferrari. Now the next day someone comes and steals the car and he catches them right before that drive away and says "Hey you cant do that its wrong."

Now we will be looking at the statement "Hey you cant do that its wrong" as you can see the athiest has some type of standard or thing he holds as what people should and should not do. Now if we look at other people most would say thats wrong and they shouldnt have done that. What is this standard of right and wrong. For brevity sake I will just call it the LOHN or the law of human nature. Now most people would confuse this with the law of nature but i must tell you it is very different.

The LON or law of nature is like gravity and the laws that we as humans can not break. were as the LOHN is the feeling you get that makes you feel bad when you do something wrong or the standard you have for what you expect of people.

Now if you disagree with anything I say please say something. But I hope we can come to agreement on everything I have said so far. To recap there is some standard we have that we expect others to follow and it seems to somwhat all agree with. I am not saying there arent any differences in our standard but the important ones stay the same.

Now please tell me anything you disagree with.
Genghis_Khan

Con

Pro starts off with a bare assertion about the existence of morality. I disagree that "there is a basis of ethics and morality". Since Pro has the burden of proof, it is his job to warrant that proposition.

Pro notes that we all have moral intuitions, but that has a perfectly sound atheistic explanation:
"According to the esteemed evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, in his book "The God Delusion", morality first arose through evolutionary changes in human psychology favoring altruistic behaviors (i.e. kin-selection, symbiosis, etc.). As time went on and human societies became more complicated, these empathetic tendencies were reinforced into a true sense of morality by religious doctrines/authority (i.e. incentives of reward and punishment) and cultural traditions (i.e. pressure for social conformity)." -- Genghis_Khan

Moreover, even if an objective standard of morality exists, Pro hasn't even attempted to explain why that necessarily entails the existence of the Biblical God.

Pro's burden of proof remains entirely unmet. The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 2
Smarticle01

Pro

So I assume Con mean that it was created by us. And I respect this position and I believed it would come up. Now I must ask if we made it we should be able to change it or have some affect on it. But no for thousands of years men have been bound to this feeling that people should act a certain way. Now I understand some things changed in right and wrong but I am talking about the essentials like: Murder, stealing, adultery. Now You might say that the people in the middle ages who executed people because they thought they were witches they must have a different type of standard or LOHN. And my answer to this is they believe with all their hearts that these people are evil and are a threat. This is not changing the LOHN if they were asked to kill someone they thought was not a witch they would think it was wrong.

You may also say that people only say things are wrong because they affect them. I am here to tell you this is not the case. I will give you another allusion. Imagine if a group was getting on the bus now someone on the bus while your walking in accidentally trips you you would not be mad at the person for it was an accident. But lets do the same allusion except this time someone tries to trip you but fails would you not be mad at him but yet this action does not affect you.

You also said that I did not relate my argument with how the God of the Bible is real but as I said in round 2 I will do that soon first I am trying to get us to agree so I ask again do you agree with what I have said so far.
Genghis_Khan

Con

Pro has misunderstood my argument.

I agree that human moral intuitions have remained relatively constant for as long as civilized society has been in existence. However, that does not make those intuitions objective. For morals to be objective features of reality, they must exist regardless of whether or not humans do. Yet human intuitions by definition cannot exist withouy human minds to conceive of them...

Therefore, my rebuttal remains standing: morality is not objective, so the base premise of whatever argument Pro is trying to make is unwarranted.

And my opponent has yet to even mention why it follows that the Biblical God exists.

A personal message to my opponent:
I must remind you that the purpose of debate is NOT to try making your opponent agree with you -- concessions are rare and usually accidental. You should instead focus on trying to convince the voters that you have successfully affirmed the resolution. I recommend that you go ahead and link your argument to the existence of the Biblical God this next round...

The resolution remains negated.
Debate Round No. 3
Smarticle01

Pro

Smarticle01 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Smarticle01

Pro

Smarticle01 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ajgudenkauf 1 year ago
ajgudenkauf
I agree with your statement about laws of nature versus human constructed laws. However, you use this term "Law of human nature" as if there were only a singular law or set of laws dictating how humans feel and react in certain situations. Human laws differ from country to country and even from state to state. What one person finds morally permissible another may not.

I feel that what your argument is heading towards is one that concludes with some absolute moral system being put in place by a supernatural being. Am I right?

If that's the case, then why is there such variability between cultures as to what is deemed right and wrong? You may try and say that there are certain things that all cultures find abhorrent like killing and stealing. I would say that those moral evaluations are due to an evolutionary necessity rather than some absolute moral system.

Furthermore, you give the example of the atheist and his car being stolen. The atheist says: "Hey you cant do that its wrong." What they really mean is that in our culture it has been determined that stealing is wrong and is harmful in some manner to the victim.

So ends my rant. What do you think?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by n7 1 year ago
n7
Smarticle01Genghis_KhanTied
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: Conduct to Con for the forfeit. Pro presents the argument from morality. I'm sorry Pro but this is perhaps the worst presentation of it I've ever seen. It's incomplete and never makes any link to an argument for objective morality. Con critiques what he can quite well. He argues morality developed evolutionarily. Pro attacks a strawman, he attacks the idea that it was made by man, something Con never said. Furthermore he argues because moral laws have remained constant therefore it implies they're somehow objective. Which seems like a complete non- sequitur. Con points this out and states that even if Pro is right, it doesn't mean the god of the bible exists. Arguments clearly go to Con. Pro needs to learn how to set up his arguments better.
Vote Placed by 8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA 1 year ago
8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA
Smarticle01Genghis_KhanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: I loathe the 'k' and it is grammatically incorrect especially in uncapitalized form so Pro gets S+g for Con's double use of this atrocious grammatical error that is cancer to the internet. Also 'I accept.' is not a complete sentence and 'GL' isn't one other and is an unexplained abbreviation. All abbreviations in a formal debate should be explained in brackets/parenthesis before using them. Con also loses conduct for using this rude version of 'okay'. Pro merely explained why the god of the Bible isn't impossible, not why it exists for sure. Con gets arguments as Pro never met their burden of proof.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Smarticle01Genghis_KhanTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
Smarticle01Genghis_KhanTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff