The Instigator
Fruitytree
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
FrackJack
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

God Does 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
FrackJack
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/10/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 806 times Debate No: 33560
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (7)

 

Fruitytree

Pro

Under the terms of the Religious Debate Tournament , my opponent and I will debate "God does exist" . I will be the one proving you this truth, and Con will prove the opposite or refute my arguments.


Definition : God is the entity responsible for the existence of the universe, and has the following attributes at least: free will , ability to do anythig including starting or ending a universe, all knowledgeable, All wise.

So this round my opponent accepts the challenge, and I start my arguments in round 2.


FrackJack

Con

I will follow the unwritten rule to accept the rules and debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Fruitytree

Pro

Thank you Con!


I start with a description of the universe we're talking about here:


The universe is this place where everything works according to well set rules , the stars and planets have set orbits , the gravity helps holding everything together, everything in it has a beginning and an end and an explanation.


Let us go to the most exciting part of the universe : Earth , the planet of life , that happens to be the only place where life is , and enough oxygen is , and life needs water , and water came from nowhere ?!


With water we had all these creatures and plants, whether we beleive in comon decent or multi descent , there still are countless kinds ,all made of water, but only one of them is responsible ?!


The human being , a special being , that dominated earth , that have been given inteligence , speach , and abilities that were not given to any other animal.


This being is the only one that have been able to study some of the rules pre-set in the universe with his given intelligence.


But let me think a moment , all this is just a serie of accidents ? one after the other ? so perfectly set ? there in no causer ? no creator? then why aren't there earths with other lives ? why aren't there other accidents that we can witness ? even the worst police officer would assume there is a causer.


Some atheists argue that if something has a natural explanation than it doesn't need a causer !! I don't know if I have to answer this although it is so ridiculous? but If Con insists I would.


http://www.scientificamerican.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

https://en.wikipedia.org...;

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com...;

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...


















FrackJack

Con

everything in it has a beginning and an end and an explanation.

This can be debated.


Let us go to the most exciting part of the universe : Earth , the planet of life , that happens to be the only place where life is , and enough oxygen is , and life needs water , and water came from nowhere ?!


Earth is the only place where there is no life? That's news to me. Water also did not "come from nowhere.".



But let me think a moment , all this is just a serie of accidents ? one after the other ?

Yes. But Evolution isn't random.

so perfectly set ? there in no causer ? no creator?

Yes. There really is nothing I can say.

then why aren't there earths with other lives ?

There a good chance there is.

why aren't there other accidents that we can witness ? even the worst police officer would assume there is a causer.


What?

Pro failed to prove her case. She had the BOP and just made fallaices.
Debate Round No. 2
Fruitytree

Pro

Con :Earth is the only place where there is no life? That's news to me. Water also did not "come from nowhere.".

Earth is the only place where there is life as far as we know, so we've been observing the universe quite enough to assume we're alone.

Well I didn't claim water came from nowhere, but that we don't know where it came from, that's why I put the question mark. It still had to come from somewhere at least outside our galaxy , to make life even possible in the right place!

Con! : Yes. But Evolution isn't random

So the only thing you believe isn't an accident is evolution ?! Evolution (if true at all) depended on a serie of accidents to occur before it -if you assume there is no God- and evolution, too ,opens a lot of whys: Why have the inteligent responsible being was possible only through one kind ?! And evolution or ( Common Descent specifically) isn't a verifiable truth so far - and this is off-topic anyway.

Still evolution , dear CON depends on an important point: Life. How did life come from no life? don't we still have all the ingredients to eventually be able to generate it? or, better, for it to be natural to occur with no help?! and incredibly we try to CAUSE it, just as much as we try to CAUSE the big Bang, because it just seems that this is what we need to do in order to believe there is no CAUSER!!

CON: There a good chance there is .

Why you say this? I don't believe in chance, who or what is it? Is there also a good chance there is a God ?!

CON: Pro failed to prove her case. She had the BOP and just made fallaices.

Because we aren't able to claim that : Big bang , universe rules , Water , life, evolution (eventually), and other phenomenons happened spontaneously , without causer , we are obliged to assume there is a Knowledgeable causer behind all this, and let me call him ? oh yeah GOD or Creator if you prefer.

So I basically proved that it is a legitimate assumption.

And this assumption is to be an axiom , that can be proven wrong the day we'll see BigBangs , well set multiverse rules, life ingredients, poping into life all the time spontaneously with no help, like grown ups !

That's what I was trying to tell when I came up with the worst police officer joke, there is a causer, until you prove these are just a series of happy accidents (by chance !) . You accuse me of making fallacies, you're invited to point them out.


http://en.wikipedia.org...;

http://www.livescience.com...;

http://www.nbcnews.com...
FrackJack

Con


Earth is the only place where there is life as far as we know, so we've been observing the universe quite enough to assume we're alone.

So now you go to " Only place where life is" to Only place we know.". Life has been found in metoarites. So that is false.


http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://upload.wikimedia.org...


Well I didn't claim water came from nowhere, but that we don't know where it came from, that's why I put the question mark. It still had to come from somewhere at least outside our galaxy , to make life even possible in the right place!

What? There is multiple theories on how water got on Earth. Most of them take place on Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org...



Evolution (if true at all) depended on a serie of accidents to occur before it -if you assume there is no God- and evolution, too ,opens a lot of whys: Why have the inteligent responsible being was possible only through one kind ?! And evolution or ( Common Descent specifically) isn't a verifiable truth so far - and this is off-topic anyway.

Yes. It is off topic.


Still evolution , dear CON depends on an important point: Life. How did life come from no life? don't we still have all the ingredients to eventually be able to generate it? or, better, for it to be natural to occur with no help?! and incredibly we try to CAUSE it, just as much as we try to CAUSE the big Bang, because it just seems that this is what we need to do in order to believe there is no CAUSER!!

Can you prove your case and just say random stuff?

Because we aren't able to claim that : Big bang , universe rules , Water , life, evolution (eventually), and other phenomenons happened spontaneously , without causer , we are obliged to assume there is a Knowledgeable causer behind all this, and let me call him ? oh yeah GOD or Creator if you prefer.

Can you prove god did this?


That's what I was trying to tell when I came up with the worst police officer joke, there is a causer, until you prove these are just a series of happy accidents (by chance !) . You accuse me of making fallacies, you're invited to point them out.


First off, you didn't prove you case. Also


http://www.nizkor.org...;

Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Fruitytree 3 years ago
Fruitytree
Thanks steve, unfortunately not all voters check the links, but that's just how it works.
Posted by StevenDixon 3 years ago
StevenDixon
Life wasn't found on meteorites

http://www.livescience.com...
Posted by Fruitytree 3 years ago
Fruitytree
GeekiTheGreat

It's true that those debates are king of unfruitful as it seems both parties don't understand each other.

The theists , go by absurdity.

The atheists need a picture.

But we certainly will end up knowing some time.

But please to pay attention, Frackjack focused on small things , and did not show we can't take it as an axiom that there is a creator.
Posted by Fruitytree 3 years ago
Fruitytree
Frackjack , It's not your responsibility to ask others what they did and why they voted, should I ask the two people who voted for you and had the same opinion in the beginning? it's ridiculous.
Posted by GeekiTheGreat 3 years ago
GeekiTheGreat
All these debates go the same way.. "There is a god!" "wheres your proof?" "god created everything around you! that is my proof!" "but science explains the stuff around us, and has proof. So why not your god?" "because he is god, god created everything and if you do not believe you are wrong and a blasphemer".
Posted by FrackJack 3 years ago
FrackJack
Leojm, did you even read the debate?
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Pro's entire case was basically the "I don't know an answer to these questions. Therefore God". With a smattering of the fallacy of incredulity. There was no real case here for Con to even rebut, as Con pointed out.

Pro, "I don't have an answer, therefore God" is not a legitimate argument.

Sources were about equal, as while Pro had more, they didn't establish an actual case. S&G were about equal, as was conduct.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Skrone 3 years ago
Skrone
FruitytreeFrackJackTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Both of you have horrible spelling and grammer.
Vote Placed by medv4380 3 years ago
medv4380
FruitytreeFrackJackTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: When using sources please cite properly. Inline as FrackJack did is ok, but citing by putting all of the citations at the bottom with no clear links of which citation goes to which point is just wrong. If Pro had used proper citations Pro would have gotten the point because Con used an invalid link for Burden of Proof that leads to a nonexistent 404 web page. Grammar goes to Pro for having the more readable argument, and Con has a problem properly spacing with quotes and punctuation. Con made the better argument. Pro had all the BoP and failed to present a coherent argument. Badgering the reader and Con by asking questions that presumed an answer, and then denied that intent when Con called Pro out on it is bad conduct. Asking rhetorical questions is fine but provide the answer for it immediately, and don't deny it when the counter to your point is presented. Both sides could have done much better.
Vote Placed by Sola.Gratia 3 years ago
Sola.Gratia
FruitytreeFrackJackTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had well thought out questions and arguments while Con just simply made rarer statements (it seems). So point for convincing arguments goes to Pro.
Vote Placed by jackintosh 3 years ago
jackintosh
FruitytreeFrackJackTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seems to fall on the "argument from ignorance" fallacy a number of times. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/arguing-from-ignorance/
Vote Placed by thp078 3 years ago
thp078
FruitytreeFrackJackTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to prove her claim.
Vote Placed by leojm 3 years ago
leojm
FruitytreeFrackJackTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro and Con had Great sources. It's just that Pro really convinced me. Con did have better conduct. Congrats to both of you. :D
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
FruitytreeFrackJackTied
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: RFD in comments.