The Instigator
daley
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
CharlesWhitman
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

God Exists

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
daley
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,108 times Debate No: 17409
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

daley

Pro

Astronomers and scientists are mostly in agreement that the universe had a beginning. It is also a fact of nature that life only comes from previous existing life. Life has never been proven to come from nonliving matter via the scientific model. Therefore, life never came to be by chance via nonliving matter, but alway came from precious life. There could never be a time when life didn't exist, otherwise, the first life would be a product of some nonliving entity, but we don't find this in nature; if it isn't found in nature then it is supernatural, and hence, the spontaneous generation of life from non-living material would have to be a supernatural act. But since we know that all living things come from previous living things, we know then that life comes only from life. But the universe had a beginning, which means that life predates the universe. It mean that before there was a universe, there was life. Any life outside of the universe, is by definition outside of all nature, and if it is outside of nature it is by definition supernatural; hence, the supernatural does indeed exist, and that supernatural entity is God.

The existence of objective moral attributes proves there is a God. By objective I mean independent of human opinion. For example, its not just our opinion that the holocaust was wrong, it really was wrong. Even if Hitler had won the war and had killed off everyone on earth who disagreed with him so that the only humans alive were those approving of the holocaust, not even this universal acceptance of genocide would make it right. It would still be an evil act even if the whole world thought it wasn't. If though, God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. This means that there is no real right or wrong, just our opinions. We therefore, have no right to tell the Nazis that what they did to the Jews was wrong. They were following the laws of their state, and people of a foreign country have no say in the matter. Who are were to condemn? Without God, there is no ultimate authority to say that rape is really wrong, or that the holocaust is an evil act.

If there is no Creator, then the other option is that it was by evolution that we came to be, and we are all just animals evolving. If that is the case, then there really is no objective morality, and we are just fooling ourselves to condemn rape and murder. When a male lion grabbed hold of an unwilling female and forces sex on her, he doesn't rape her! When a lion eats a zebra, he doesn't murder that zebra. If we are all just animals, then murder is just survival of the fittest as it has always been throughout our animal history. There is no rational reason on the evolutionary model why we should condemn these practices.

Further, if God exists, then we can make sense of why we help others even when we get nothing out of it. But on a model of evolution via natural selection, there is no naturalistic reason why we should risk our lives for the sake of stangers who cannot return any benefit to us. If we are made in God's image, having his qualities, then we understand why we have these attributes, but without God, non of this makes sense.

The only known source of meaningful information is the mind. The complex information in the cell and DNA must have come from somewhere, and science deals with inference to the best explanation. Nature produces patterns, like waves of the sea making ripples in the sand, but it doesn't produce meaningful information; so if you see the words "I love you" written in the sand, you can be sure an intelligent mind is behind it. Embedded in our DNA is far more complex information than the words "I love you." The information in the DNA, cell, and so forth must be the product of an intelligent designer.

However, since the blueprint for building a protein is stored in the nucleus of the cell and the actual site for building proteins is outside the nucleus, help is needed to get the coded blueprint from the nucleus to the "building site." RNA (ribonucleic acid) molecules provide this help. RNA molecules are chemically similar to those of DNA, and several forms of RNA are needed to do the job. Take a closer look at these extremely complex processes for making our vital proteins with the help of RNA.

Work starts in the cell's nucleus, where a section of the DNA ladder unzips. This allows RNA letters to link to the exposed DNA letters of one of the DNA strands. An enzyme moves along the RNA letters to join them into a strand. Thus DNA letters are transcribed into RNA letters, forming what you might call a DNA dialect. The newly formed chain of RNA peels away, and the DNA ladder zips up again.
After further modification, this particular type of message-carrying RNA is ready. It moves out of the nucleus and heads for the protein-production site, where the RNA letters are decoded. Each set of three RNA letters forms a "word" that calls for one specific amino acid. Another form of RNA looks for that amino acid, grabs it with the help of an enzyme, and tows it to the "construction site." As the RNA sentence is being read and translated, a growing chain of amino acids is produced. This chain curls and folds into a unique shape, leading to one kind of protein. And there may well be over 50,000 kinds in our body.

Even this process of protein folding is significant. In 1996, scientists around the world, "armed with their best computer programs, competed to solve one of the most complex problems in biology: how a single protein, made from a long string of amino acids, folds itself into the intricate shape that determines the role it plays in life. .�.�. The result, succinctly put, was this: the computers lost and the proteins won. .�.�. Scientists have estimated that for an average-sized protein, made from 100 amino acids, solving the folding problem by trying every possibility would take 1027 (a billion billion billion) years."—The New York Times.

Have you an idea of how long it takes for a chain of 20 amino acids to form? About one second! And this process goes on constantly in our body cells, from our head to our foot and everywhere in between. What is the point? While other factors too numerous to mention are involved, the teamwork needed to produce and maintain life is awe-inspiring. And the term "teamwork" hardly describes the precise interaction required to produce a protein molecule, since a protein needs information from DNA molecules, and DNA needs several forms of specialized RNA molecules. Nor can we ignore the various enzymes, each performing a distinct and vital role. As our body makes new cells, which happens billions of times a day and without our conscious guidance, it requires copies of all three components—DNA, RNA, and protein. You can see why the magazine New Scientist comments: "Take away any one of the three and life grinds to a halt." Or take this a step further. Without a complete and functioning team, life could not have come about. Who programmed these things to work?

Is it reasonable that each of those three molecular team players arose spontaneously at the same time, in the same place, and so precisely tuned that they could combine to work their wonders? Yeah right!

Interviewed in a documentary film, Professor Maciej Giertych, a noted geneticist from the Institute of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, answered:
"We have become aware of the massive information contained in the genes. There is no known way to science how that information can arise spontaneously. It requires an intelligence; it cannot arise from chance events. Just mixing letters does not produce words." He added: "For example, the very complex DNA, RNA, protein replicating system in the cell must have been perfect from the very start. If not, life systems could not exist. The only logical explanation is that this vast quantity of information came from an intelligence." The origin of life requires an intelligent source.
CharlesWhitman

Con

Every argument made thus far, fails to actually prove God, specifically the God of the Christian Bible. It is through faith one comes to know God, not science!

I do not even understand how any of these form a cogent argument. None of the conclusions follow from the premises. His conclusion the supernatural entity is God, for instance, does not follow in any way from the premises provided. Even if the entire argument worked, the final conclusion is a complete assumption. I don't even need to get into the blatant scientific misconceptions of biogenesis and abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org...) (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

This argument for objective morality is completely wrong, but again I don't need to go into depth on the specific reasons because his conclusion is still an assumption. This supreme law giver does no need to be God, especially the God of the Christian Bible. It could as easily be a deistic entity that cares nothing for human endeavors. There is no proof!

The following argument referring to evolution and morality again makes no attempt to prove God. It only supposes that we have no reason to formulate any sort of ethical or moral code. I could think of reasons for us to construct moral codes: societal stability being one.

Again, the next argument only supposes that we can make sense of morality by the grace of God. This is no proof! This is also a "God of the gaps" argument; that is, we need God in order to understand a specific phenomenon: morality. Well, what happens to your god when we find a way to explain morality? One possible way to explain morality is demonstrated in this video ().

This next argument for intelligent design makes the same fatal mistake Pro has been making thus far: it assumes this intelligent designer is God. This is no proof of God! Moreover, comparing human language to DNA is unfounded. The two things are completely different. Of course, I would conclude that specific words found on a beach were written by a human because humans write words. We do not know if entities create DNA and therefore cannot make the conclusion they do.

His final tangent on the complexity of DNA is completely unnecessary. So what if scientists understand very little about DNA? This is no proof of God! There is no reason here that this unsubstantiated, supernatural entity must be God.

Sorry, you are misguided if you think you can understand God. You need only faith!
Debate Round No. 1
daley

Pro

Con argues that I have not proved the God of the Christian Bible. Let me clarify that in the resolution I never said anything about the God of the Christian Bible; that would be another debate. All I have to show is that a supernatural entity (God) does exist. Weather this entity is a trinity (as in the Bible) or one person (as in Islam) is not important to this debate. What his name is (Jesus, Zeus, Jehovah, Allah, Krishna, Ra, etc) is not important to this debate. If proving God's existence was synonymous with proving Christianity, then all theists would be Christians, but certainly one can believe in God and not in an inspired book. In fact, humans have believed in God before there ever was a Bible. So this is just a red herring.

Con complains that he doesn't understand my argument, as if his not understanding it somehow refutes it! He claims that none of the conclusions follow from the premises, but does not give one example to show how this is the case.

"His conclusion the supernatural entity is God, for instance, does not follow in any way from the premises provided."

Premise 1, the physical universe is all of nature
Premise 2, the physical universe had a beginning
Premise 3, life comes from life
Premise 4, life does not come from non-living entities by itself
Premise 3+4 = Premise 5, since life only comes from life, there was never a time when there was no life
Conclusion, the universe didn't always exist, but life did, so there was life existing before the universe. The universe is all of nature, thus, this life was outside nature, which is by definition supernatural (that which is not conformed to natural law).

Con must tell us which premises he disagrees with, or why the conclusions don't follow the premises, otherwise, his mere assertion that they don't are just empty. He mentions biogenesis and abiogenesis but provides no argument on these terms. I'm not going to argue with a link. If Con believes in that life came from non-living substances he's going to have to provide the argument for it. We don't see that happening today, do we? We don't have any repeatable laboratory experiments confirming it, do we? The generation of life from a non-living source would be just as miraculous as a resurrection from the dead.

"This argument for objective morality is completely wrong, but again I don't need to go into depth on the specific reasons because his conclusion is still an assumption."

Con claims my argument is wrong but doesn't give the reasons why its wrong. Is it because he can't find anything wrong with the argument? This is assertion. Show us what's wrong with the argument, Con!

"This supreme law giver does no need to be God, especially the God of the Christian Bible. It could as easily be a deistic entity that cares nothing for human endeavors. There is no proof!"

The problem is that no natural explanation accounts for objective morality, only supernatural ones do. Is Con saying that there are no objective moral values? That the holocause was not truely wrong?

"The following argument referring to evolution and morality again makes no attempt to prove God. It only supposes that we have no reason to formulate any sort of ethical or moral code. I could think of reasons for us to construct moral codes: societal stability being one."

When you see a house, that house points to a designer. Norational person would conclude that a house got built all by itself. Science deals with inference to the best explantion. There are many things science can't get at like pulsars, black holes, dark matter, and so on, but their effects are studies and as a result, scientist conclude that these things do exist. Now our moral values must have come from somewhere, and what's the best explantion?

"Again, the next argument only supposes that we can make sense of morality by the grace of God. This is no proof! This is also a "God of the gaps" argument; that is, we need God in order to understand a specific phenomenon: morality. Well, what happens to your god when we find a way to explain morality? One possible way to explain morality is demonstrated in this video ()."

The link to the video isn't working. I can't find a link between those brackets. Also, Con doesn't seem to grasp the meaning of his own argument. If God doesn't exist, there can be no objective morality. So Con, do you believe that murder is truely, objectively wrong? Yes, or no? If you, you have just abandoned all natural explanations in favor of a supernatural one.

"This next argument for intelligent design makes the same fatal mistake Pro has been making thus far: it assumes this intelligent designer is God."

Who is it? I wonder if Con is willing to admit that information comes from a mind? Why is he avoiding this? Because he can't tell us whose mind its coming from. If not God's, whose? Aliens? Well, wear did the information in thhere heads come from? Life only comes from life, so we'll end back up with the ultimate life soon enough.

"Moreover, comparing human language to DNA is unfounded. The two things are completely different."

Yes they are very different, DNA is far more complexed.

"Of course, I would conclude that specific words found on a beach were written by a human because humans write words. We do not know if entities create DNA and therefore cannot make the conclusion they do."

If a spaceship were to crash in your yard but you found no bodies inside, what would you think? By your logic it can't be aliens because you don't know aliens exist, you've never seen one. So to whom does this space ship belong? It's design and strange symbols, as well as advanced technology, points to an intelligence beyond itself. You don't need to know that aliens exist in order to credit them with building an alien ship; the ship itself is the proof, just like the information in our genes and DNA is the proof of God, a higher intellected.

"Sorry, you are misguided if you think you can understand God. You need only faith!"

I never said I understood God, I argued that he exists.
CharlesWhitman

Con

The biggest problem here is that there are several arguments wrapped into one. We have an argument for the creation (or formation) of life, objective morality, intelligent design, and now finally some sort of undefinable God that fits all conceptions of God. Pro exemplifies the issue when he states, "All I have to show is that a supernatural entity (God) does exist. Weather this entity is a trinity (as in the Bible) or one person (as in Islam) is not important to this debate. What his name is (Jesus, Zeus, Jehovah, Allah, Krishna, Ra, etc) is not important to this debate." The character of this supernatural entity(ies) does matter because without this, the being is essentially meaningless. This entity could be multiple beings, one being, all-good, all-evil, and much more.

Pro seemingly doesn't understand his own argument. He clearly says in his first argument, "[T]he supernatural does indeed exist, and that supernatural entity is God." Why make this distinction, especially using God with a capital G? God as a proper noun means the God of the Christian Bible, not other gods or variations on a theme (http://www.thinkingchristian.net...). If we take his rebuttal and compare it to his first argument, we get a major contradiction: supernatural entity= any possible entity with various names and characteristics, or supernatural entity= God. So which is it? If God is to mean any possible entity, then this debate is completely useless in that any conclusion Pro arrives at is void of any meaning. What is a being if it has no characteristics?

With all that said, I will refute Pro's first argument as it is the most crucial.
Premise 1, the physical universe is all of nature
Premise 2, the physical universe had a beginning
Premise 3, life comes from life
Premise 4, life does not come from non-living entities by itself
Premise 3+4 = Premise 5, since life only comes from life, there was never a time when there was no life
Conclusion, the universe didn't always exist, but life did, so there was life existing before the universe. The universe is all of nature, thus, this life was outside nature, which is by definition supernatural (that which is not conformed to natural law)
I will start with P3. This misconstrues and misunderstands the concepts of biogenesis, which sates that life can only come from life, and abiogenesis, which states that living organisms formed billions of years ago on an earth through natural processes (links are in round 1). The two concepts do not contradict one another. They actually compliment each other in many ways. Both refer to different stages within earth's development and atmospheric composition. Biogenesis refers to the present conditions on earth, especially an atmosphere relatively rich in oxygen, a substance that is detrimental to the formation of complex organic compounds. In other words, earth's current conditions make it impossible to sustain what could have potentially formed in earth's early atmosphere. Abiogenesis refers to a very different earth than the one that exists today where tests have shown that the building blocks of life can appear by natural means. Since P3 is misused, P4 and P5 no longer follow and the conclusion becomes invalid.

Here's my argument for life coming from non-living matter.
P1) All life is composed of non-living compounds that are found in nature.
P2) Tests suggest that these compounds were produced within earth's early atmosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org...).
p3) Tests also suggest that electrical activity can catalyze the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids (http://en.wikipedia.org...).
C) Life originated from non-living matter through a slow process of naturally occurring processes that no longer occur on earth presently.
Another argument from wikipedia that incorporates the evolution of cells (self-replication) is as follows (http://en.wikipedia.org...):
1 The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis)
2 Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity might have resulted in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. The first ribosome might have been created by such a process, resulting in more prevalent protein synthesis.
3 Synthesized proteins might then outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer, relegating nucleic acids to their modern use, predominantly as a carrier of genomic information.
Debate Round No. 2
daley

Pro

In my opponent's Youtube link, it is argued that moral genes are good for the population and so these ones survives. First of all, I challenge Con that he cannot name any gene that is specifically responsible for any particular quality. There is no gene that casues envy, or hate, or pride, or love, or empathy, and if he thinks there is, then tell us, what's the name of hat gene? Where in he body is it located? Name the scientist who discovered it! If genes were the cause of such qualities, then people who are known to be filled with hate should have some physical difference in their genes from those who are filled with love; people who are known to be generous should have different genes from those who are not; but that's not the case! We all have the same kind of genes despite our varying qualities, so Con cannot settle the issue of how morality came to be by appealing to genes.

Several elements can be distinguished in morality:

1."Do unto others" as you would like them to do to you, as a means to getting them to treat you that way--in other words, hoping that they will reciprocate.
2.Treat people who are special to you--relatives, friends, members of the same group or nation--as you would like to be treated, but not merely as a means to getting them to treat you that way.
3.Treat every human being (and perhaps animals too) as you would like to be treated, even when they are not likely to reciprocate, even if they are not likely to retaliate if you treat them badly.

Darwin's theory will explain (1) and (2) easily enough, but not (3). Although the modern Darwinian theory is sometimes said to provide an explanation of "altruism", altruism goes beyond helpfulness to kin. It seems clear that there is in human beings a disposition to treat every human being, even strangers and foreigners, with consideration for their welfare even when they cannot reciprocate or retaliate--otherwise we wouldn't have such concepts as nepotism, favouritism, prejudice, racism, chauvinism, as things to be avoided. How is it possible, on Darwin's "tribal" theory or on the "kin" theory of modern Darwinians, that some people object when their own nation or tribe or group are being unfair to outsiders? In almost every war there has been an ethically-motivated anti-war movement. At the end of the eighteenth century Charles James Fox and his group of Whigs spoke out against the British campaign against the French Revolution. Cobden and Bright spoke out against the Crimean War. Various Liberals opposed the Boer War. There was opposition to World War I, to the Vietnam war, to the Gulf War (some of the American military leaders also seem to have been moved by moral considerations to limit the killing). In World War II there was opposition to the policy of area bombing. In peace time there are organisations to collect money to send to the poor in other countries, obviously without any expectation that the action will be reciprocated. Kin preference is clearly a stronger force than universalist morality, but the latter does have some influence, and it is not accounted for by the current theory.

It seems pretty clear that an evolutionary explanation will not provide a foundation for morality. An attempt would be to say that we ought to observe morality because moral conduct enhances the survival chances of our genes. But why should we care about that? We do care about it, perhaps, but if we don't (or didn't), why should we? A dog does n ot care about a cat's survival; why would we care about the survival of strangers? Or it might be said that moral behaviour on my part improves the survival chances of humanity generally. The same question arises: if I don't in fact care about such things, can evolutionary theory give any reason why I should? On the other hand, it seems that the evolutionary explanation may undermine committment to morality. Once morality is seen as serving some purpose, it becomes possible to ask how much we care about that purpose in comparison with other things. Morality is no longer "categorical" or over-riding. Survival of the fittest dictates that only the strong survive, so why not kill all the disabled and retarted people, as well as the mentally sick, who are nothing but dead weight holding us back from progress? They take up time and resources and don't contribute to the success of the clan; so why keep them? Why care? Evolution can explain this, God does provide a rational basis.

Con also is running from the holocaust argument. Was it truely wrong? These Nazis were following the laws of their state, and were not obligated to follow laws of other nations, so unless there was some universal moral code from on high, how can you condem them? Theism holds some things are truely evil, evolution holds its just man's opinions, and in nature there is no righ or wrong, just blind pettiless indifference.

As for abiogenesis; the link he gave in round 1 references the Miller-Urey experiment as proof. In 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an "atmosphere" of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. This produced some of the many amino acids that exist and that are the building blocks of proteins. However, he got just 4 of the 20 amino acids needed for life to exist. More than 30 years later, scientists were still unable experimentally to produce all the 20 necessary amino acids under conditions that could be considered plausible. Miller assumed that earth's primitive atmosphere was similar to the one in his experimental flask. Why? Because, as he and a co-worker later said: "The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing [no free oxygen in the atmosphere] conditions." (The Origins of Life on the Earth, by Stanley L.�Miller and Leslie E. Orgel, 1974, p. 33) Yet other evolutionists theorize that oxygen was present. The dilemma this creates for evolution is expressed by Hitching: "With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays." (The Neck of the Giraffe, p. 65)

The fact is, any attempt to establish the nature of earth's primitive atmosphere can only be based on guesswork or assumption. How likely is it that the amino acids thought to have formed in the atmosphere would drift down and form an "organic soup" in the oceans? Not likely at all. The same energy that would split the simple compounds in the atmosphere would even more quickly decompose any complex amino acids that formed. Interestingly, in his experiment of passing an electric spark through an "atmosphere," Miller saved the four amino acids he got only because he removed them from the area of the spark. Had he left them there, the spark would have decomposed them. So Miller was playing God, manaeuvering events to make life, not letting nature take its course. Without a conscious entity (Miller) to romove the 4 amino acids from the spark area they would die, so too, who was the conscious entity that removed them back at creation? Hmmm

However, assuming that amino acids somehow reached the oceans and were protected from the destructive ultraviolet radiation in the atmosphere, what then? Hitching explained: "Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules." (Ibid) So once amino acids are in the water, they must get out of it if they are to form larger molecules and evolve toward becoming proteins useful for the formation of life. But once they get out of the water, they are in the destructive ultraviolet light again! "In other words," Hitching says, "the theoretical chances of getting through even this first and relatively easy stage [getting amino acids] in the evolution of life are forbidding." Abiogensis is a lie. Con can't show us how it worked. I'll respond to the rest of Con's argument in the next round.
CharlesWhitman

Con

Before I start, it should be stated that this resolution, or the title of the debate, is too narrow. I believe God exists, but I do not believe he can be rationalized, known through reason. Pro has argued that he can. I accepted the debate after reading his arguments, and I believed his arguments to be fallacious. So my position is not against the existence of God, but against Pro's actual argument. I hope that clears things up.

My opponent must recapitulate his argument. It has completely failed. Moreover, it must be narrowed because it is too broad for anyone to adequately address. He has now resorted to attempting to poke holes into various scientific theories without proving his case. That would be fine if he were Con in this argument. He has a burden of proof, however, and has completely failed to meet that burden.

Furthermore, Pro is claiming that if I cannot prove life was produced naturally, then he must be right that it was produced supernaturally. This is a clear-cut case of a false dilemma. He must prove his case, and I have already shown why his argument is invalid. Even if Pro proved that life was produced beyond nature, that would not necessitate the supernatural entity to be God. Again, his conclusion is "[T]he supernatural does indeed exist, and that supernatural entity is God." It should be pointed out that Pro has made a distinction between God and the supernatural, using God as a proper noun, which suggests that he means the God of the Christian Bible, or the God of Abraham. If he wanted this supernatural entity to mean anything that could potentially exist, then he should not have made the distinction and should have made a specific definition. I would say that only faith can lead someone to conclude God exists!

I have already explained that there is no reason for me to actually refute every single argument Pro has made here because I have shown that each conclusion ends by assuming the supernatural to be God. Even if all his premises are true, his conclusions only assume God exists, and we are left in the exact same position we were before the debate: faith in God!
Debate Round No. 3
daley

Pro

"Before I start, it should be stated that this resolution, or the title of the debate, is too narrow."

Con waits till the second last round to complain that the resolution is too narrow; why did he not tell me in the comments section to widen the resolution a bit so he have the sort of debate he wanted? Could it be he's having some difficulty refuting my argument and is now wining because he isn't getting his way?

"I believe God exists,"

Vote Pro!

"but I do not believe he can be rationalized, known through reason."

Con says on his profile page that he is a Christian. I don't know if he's the kind of Christian that doesn't believe the Bible. But the Bible says "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." (Rom 1:19-20) It is only God's existence we need to know in this debate, and Romans 1:19-20 is saying that the creation itself shows enough proof of God so that we are without excuse. Psalm 19:1 says "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork." God's signature is all over his work. If Con is a Christian who beleives the Bible, he couldn't make the argument he is making. I'm left to believe he was not serious when he wrote his profile.

He even says that his argument is not against the existence of God, hence, he's not even arguing against the resolution "God exists." Vote Pro.

"My opponent must recapitulate his argument. It has completely failed."

Because you say so? I'll let the voters decide that, thank you.

"Moreover, it must be narrowed because it is too broad for anyone to adequately address."

It's too braod for "you" to address, I know plenty of atheists who can competantly bring a more reasonable argument than you have against the resolution. I won't agree with them, but at least they would make more sense than you have so far. Con has admitted he cannot competantly address the issue; vote Pro!

"He has now resorted to attempting to poke holes into various scientific theories without proving his case."

Con brought them up, so I showed them to be very unrealistic. He hasn't shown God's existence to be unrealistic. I showed his theories to be improbable. Had I left them alone he'd be boasting that I couldn't respond to his evidence.

"Even if Pro proved that life was produced beyond nature, that would not necessitate the supernatural entity to be God."

And what other supernatural entity do you know of that existed before the entire universe? Con's problem is that he wanted to tie me down to the Christian concept of God, but all major religions recognize God as a supernatural entity.

"I would say that only faith can lead someone to conclude God exists!"

And what is faith? If Con believes in faith apart from evidence, then Con's beief in God is mere credulity. He's gullable, believing in something without any proof. If Con is comfortable thinking od himself in that way, fine, but I'm not, and I doubt most Christians are. Con seems to be saying that he believes in something he has no good rational reason to believe. So why does he beieve it? Why not give up God, and become an atheist?
CharlesWhitman

Con

I said that "it is through faith one comes to know God, not science!" You are the one trying to prove God's existence using science and reason. I have shown your main argument to be invalid. I have shown over-and-over again that your other arguments do not matter because they are concluded by an assumption. Maybe I should not have called the title too narrow, but I was trying to make a distinction between your argument and the title of the debate. There is a clear difference. I guess it would be one more thing that should have been changed within your entire argument.

Your argument needs to be recapitulated for several reasons. One, you have made a gross assumption that "all major religions recognize God as a supernatural entity." This is untrue. Hindus do not believe in the God of the Bible, and they have no more or no less evidence for their gods than you for your God. Buddhism is the same: no belief in God.
Second, you argue several separate issues, of which I did address and you never refuted my rebuttals. You never showed how we could get past the assumption and prove God's existence. Every single argument you made had the same mistake: concluded with an assumption that "the supernatural does indeed exist, and that supernatural entity is God." This is not proof!

Vote Con because Pro's argument's didn't work, he didn't even understand his own argument, and he failed to meet his burden of proof!
Debate Round No. 4
daley

Pro

As readers can see, I never said Hindus believe in the God of the Bible. I said they perceive God as a supernatural entity, and anyone who knows the vedic concept of Knrishna, or Brahma, Vishnu and Siva knows this. The Buddist believe God is a supernatural "force," but a supernatural one non-the-less. In Zen Buddism, when they tap into this force, they believe they can defy gravity, levitate, etc. Muslims believe Allah is a supernatural entity. Con is way off tract, and he hasn't refuted any of my arguments. He didn't deny that the universe had a beginning; nor did he refute that life comes from life, which is what we find in the natural world. Unless he can prove that life somehow can come from non-life, he cannot prove his contention of abiogenesis. This theory I have refuted by pointing out how implausible it is given the difficulties faces in even getting the right proteins. So life only comes from life, never from non-living matter, hence there was always life. This means life predates the universe, and by that we have to conclude a supernatural entity existed before the unvierse. Now Con asks "how do you know this entity is God"? Well, what else could it be?

I have also argued that an intelligent mind is the only known souce of information, so the information contained in our cells, DNA, and so forth must have come from an intelligent being at first. How do I know its God? Well, what else could it be? What are the options? Aliens? That only pushes the same qustion further. Where did the complex information in their genes come from? At some point we must reach that first sources of all the information. Con's argument is like a man finding a house in the desert and saying, well, it looks designed, like someone built it; but how do I know someone was human? Maybe E.T built it.

I have also shown that our morality points to a higher source of law beyond ourselves. Vote Pro...
CharlesWhitman

Con

If I say anything more, I'll just be repeating everything my opponent has failed to address. His arguments never proved God. If they could have possibly proved anything, that is, if they did not contain misused, absurd, or misunderstood premises, was that there was a supernatural force, which would not be the same as God, which when used as a proper noun, signifies the God of Abraham, not some supernatural force believed by the Hindus, or Buddhists. At best, he showed the possibility of an unknown supernatural force without ay definable characteristics. The only thing we are left with after this debate is faith in something, not proof, therefore, Pro failed! Proving God is different than believing he exists. We have faith in all sorts of things: family,friends, trust in our senses, etc.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by daley 5 years ago
daley
i have posted humblysktrth a debate on the existence of God; since he's so sure there is no good ecidence for his existence, i hope he takes up the challenge.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
daleyCharlesWhitmanTied
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 did not understand the argument was for theism as a concept. He continued to jump around but offered no real rebuttal. Poor conduct due to the ad hominems.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
daleyCharlesWhitmanTied
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 did well for the first 2 rounds but then his argument falls apart. In round 3 Pro begins to slip by focusing solely on Cons argument, without showing how his points support his resolution. By R4 Pro seemed to lose sight of his resolution altogether, focusing completely on Con. By R5 the debate had gotten completely off course. Pro had the burden of proof and as such, he must be able to maintain his argument in the face of rebuttals. He did not do that in this debate.