The Instigator
Robert.Aklyd
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MrJosh
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

God Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
MrJosh
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/12/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 583 times Debate No: 35535
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Robert.Aklyd

Pro

God exists, this is self evident. How Atheists are able to delude themselves into claiming He doesn't exists is beyond me.
MrJosh

Con

I accept this debate. As PRO has made a positive claim in his opening statement, I will wait for his arguments and evidence in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
Robert.Aklyd

Pro

Our world shows proof that it was designed everywhere we look. You cannot deny this. Everything on earth works so well that the only answer is that it must have been created by an intelligent God.
http://www.leaderu.com...
MrJosh

Con

I would like to thank PRO for his arguments, I have two main thoughts:

The Argument from Design

You have basically said that the things we see in our universe that seem to fit together so well, they must have been designed by an intelligent designer. This is not the case. The fact that complex, seemingly designed patterns and interrelationships can and do come from naturalistic processes is well understood [1].

An Argument from Ignorance

An Argument from Ignorance is the name of a logical fallacy in which one claims that since they don't know the answer to something, the answer must be (insert pet explanation here) [2]. This fallacy is pretty much built into the Argument from Design. Basically, you see what you think is design, you cannot explain how it could be anything but design, therefore, you conclude that it is designed by a designer.

Final Thoughts

PRO has tried to use the Argument from Design, I have shown how this argument fails. Also, even if we accept that the universe must have been designed, which we have no reason to do, PRO has not shown why the designer must be a god. PRO has not met the burden of proof he accepted when he made a positive claim.

[1] http://www.colorado.edu...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Robert.Aklyd

Pro

You say the well designed planet we live on was not designed, but that just doesn't make sense. There is no way that our eyes could have evolved by chance. This proves that there must have been a God creating the world.

You have also not shown that God doesn't exist. You have not met your burden of proof. You are deluding yourself just like all the other Atheists that try and fail to prove that God doesn't exist.
MrJosh

Con

I would like to thank PRO for his comments in the final round, and for setting up this debate in the first place. I would also like to commend him for jumping into a difficult topic on his first debate here on DDO.

I will first address the few points brought up in this round, and then conclude with my final thoughts.

Eyes

The evolution of our eyes is largely understood [1]. In fact, there is considerable evidence showing that the eyes of several different species evolved very similar eyes by very different evolutionary paths [2]. Therefore, nothing regarding the existence of a god is proven. Furthermore, even if we had no idea how our eyes came to be, it would still not be appropriate to claim them the work of a god, for the reasons I mentioned in the previous round; it would be an Argument from Ignorance [3].

The Burden of Proof

In PRO's final paragraph, he points out that I have not shown that no gods exist. Of course, he is correct. I did not try to prove that no gods exist because I didn't have to. PRO made a positive claim ("God Exists"), and therefore has the Burden of Proof. It is the responsibility of the one making a claim to provide sufficient evidence to support that claim [4]. I had no such responsibility since I made no claims; nowhere did I claim that no gods exist.

Final Thoughts

This debate started with PRO making the claim that "God Exists." He tried to use the argument from design; I showed how that argument fails. He tried to claim that the human eye must have been designed, requiring a deity; I showed that we know how our eye evolved, countering his need for a deity. PRO has not met his burden of proof.

[1] http://www.scientificamerican.com...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://rationalwiki.org...
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
I think you have it backwards, atheist do not have the burden of proof. We merely claim, the most logical explanation is that there is no God. When you say there is a God, you have the burden of proof, which is impossible to prove
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
I think you have it backwards, atheist do not have the burden of proof. We merely claim, the most logical explanation is that there is no God. When you say there is a God, you have the burden of proof, which is impossible to prove
Posted by jktroll 3 years ago
jktroll
Pro is trying to shift the burden of proof. The burden of proof dictates Pro must prove God exists. Con needn't disprove anything. And the fact of the matter that it happened by chance 'doesn't make sense' is a big statement to be making as this only applies to your opinion and therefore you have no valid evidence. Pro has wasted his round being ignorant.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Robert.AklydMrJoshTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Things can work together so well without design. In fact, much complexity comes from what which is not intelligent. Con showed this, and undermined Pro's argument sufficiently. Con had a richer variety of sources, and Pro loses conduct for implying that Con was "delusional".
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
Robert.AklydMrJoshTied
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: Although Pro didn't meet his burden of proof by establishing a well thought out argument for God's existence, I don't feel that Con put the flimsy argument to rest, either. He claimed Pro was arguing from ignorance and that was about it... Still I will award Con arguments on the basis that Pro never fulfilled his burden of proof, also Con had Better conduct.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Ameliamk1
Robert.AklydMrJoshTied
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: Blown out of the water. I wouldn't be surprised if Pro is an atheist making fun of theists.