The Instigator
Ceci
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
sagesteppe
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

God does not exist

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/27/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 845 times Debate No: 103317
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

Ceci

Pro

In this debate I (Pro) will be arguing against the existence of god.(Con) will argue for the existence of god.

Definition: god - a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes

Rules : no trolling no forfeits

Round one : acceptance
R2 :arguments
R3 :Rebuttals + arguments
R4 :Rebuttals
R5 :Rebuttals

I welcome a good opponent.
sagesteppe

Con

I accept your challenge, though I must say that I'm a simple man, and my responses may be breif, but to the point. At any rate, I look forward to excersizing both logic and faith in this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Ceci

Pro

First, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting the debate. I wish you best of luck. I will also be brief just for simplicity.

I shall begin by saying that the best reason for me is that there is no good reasons for the existence of a creator, and I am interested what my opponent have to say about that so I can give a longer counter arguments in the next rounds. I think the deist God is the most difficult to reject, and one could make a reasonable case for his existence, not one that I accept.

The absolute lack of evidence.

The atheistic proposition may not be that there is no God, but the lack of evidence for the existence of one. All science is based on reason and not faith. There isn't a slightest piece evidence or reason that there is a supernatural being who created the universe, defined the laws of nature and beyond reasonable doubt created us in his image. Its the theistic position to claim such evidence exists.

The Unnecessary explanation

You don't need a supernatural being to fill the gaps of science, in order to explain them. A creator does not make things easier, because of the complexity in explanation of the creator itself. For example you don't need god to explain the diversity and beauty of all living things, which Darwin explains by evolution by natural selection. One can use his personal incredulity and nonsense to suggest that they have been designed by a God. There is a perfectly good explanation on how thing evolved, and lack of explanation in the existence and origin of a God. Starting from something complex leads you nowhere in the first place. Its much more easier to suggest that the origin of the universe has a naturalistic solution and came by the laws of nature. Ocaam's razor deal with this problem very well.

1. No evidence for the existence of a God.
2. No need for a supernatural intervention.
3. From 1 and 2, no reason to think there is a God.
sagesteppe

Con

I too wish my opponent luck. I feel a certain amount of excitement as I feel that I'm engaging in a friendly and civil debate.

My background consists of an of undergraduate degree in biology, and" employment in the mainly scientific field of wildlife management. I'm also active in my church attendance and participation (Christian), and I have done so through a crisis of faith that resulted in discovering a balance between science and religion.

I shall order my argument into 2 parts, and they are as follows:

1. Faith precedes the physical evidence

The direction of these "existence of God" debates almost always becomes evidence driven." My argument is that there is no evidence that can be relied upon without faith."
Definition Faith: belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

The Apostle Paul taught that "faith is the substance [assurance] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" ( Hebrews 11:1)

What is the evidence that Paul speaks of? I would argue that he means things or impressions that are intrinsic, or in the context of this debate, they are spiritual apprehensions. Such evidences are unmeasured to mankind, and ultimately individualistic. I would also note that because spiritual apprehensions are unmeasurable by extrinsic means, they can neither be supported nor refuted by science just as the existence of God.

Physical or even metaphysical evidences of God's existence will always point to faith in them." There is no telescope to look up and see His face, yet He didn't leave us in the dark. There are those who have seen him, but again you need faith to believe on the words of those who have. I believe that God has a comprehensible personage and can show himself according to his own will and purpose," and for those who have seen him in the flesh still must rely on faith. After all how many witnessed the manifestation of Christ in the flesh, yet called for His crucifixion, excusing Him to be an ordinary man. Our ultimate test is to worship by faith, and not by knowledge alone.

2. The idea of God is transcendent

I will first illustrate this argument by a parallel in art. Mortal man cannot paint an object or person that does not exist, or has not existed. Every painting is a result of a direct observation, memory, or copy of what somebody else has seen. Any variation to that reality becomes a distortion of it, and is a result of both skill level and personal preferences in making distortions (keep in mind that these distortions are also linked to observable things), thus we get various forms and meanings of art that is separate from realism such as impressionism, expressionism, surrealism, etc. No matter the style of art, the central idea, color scheme, or shapes are tied to that which is real.

My point is that mankind does not create the idea of god, but will distort the idea of God according to his or her own imagination or selfish desires. The idea of a supernatural being itself depends on the manifestation of a supernatural being to cause various ideas of god/gods as well as religion in all of it's variations.
Debate Round No. 2
Ceci

Pro

1. Faith precedes the physical evidence

Everyone is an atheist. Everyone doesn't believe in at least one God. A Christian believes in the Christian faith, because he happens to be brought up in a Christian country. If you happen to brought up in the middle east you will most likely be a Muslim, and I am sure that you do not believe in the ancient Egyptian sun god Ra, etc. As a Christian my opponent claims to know which one is the right one. If (Con) wants to advance on the claim that the Christian God is the right one, I will be happy to hear what he have to say about that, if he do it convincingly.

Why choose any religion over another, since its based on blind faith.

My opponent says: " My argument is that there is no evidence that can be relied upon without faith." Since we use the definition of faith:' belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof ', therefore I must point out that there may be the two kinds of faith. There is that religious, blind faith which is based on no evidence at all, on spiritual apprehension rather than proof, and there is that faith in the reasoning process or the scientific method. There is a huge difference between the two, since the faith in reason is reliable and rational, and the blind faith is unreliable and there is no reason to follow it. The argument " My argument is that there is no evidence that can be relied upon without faith." is nothing but meaningless. You don't need faith if you have the evidence, that's what faith means, simply throwing yourself in a illogical and irrational believe.


2. The idea of God is transcendent

'Mortal man cannot paint an object or person that does not exist, or has not existed. Every painting is a result of a direct observation, memory, or copy of what somebody else has seen.' The man made illusion of God, came from the desire for authority, to have someone to tell you what to do, to take care of you while you live and after you die. It came before we knew that the earth orbit the sun, and It came from time when we didn't have any good answers for anything, and we needed explanation, even a bad one is better than nothing. Our first attempts in philosophy and general knowledge. Well, the claims of the bible are irrelevant in 21st century, the metaphysical claims are false, I can pay you (Con) the compliment as I assume you as a biologist and since you have background in science, you will agree with that. We know great deal about our cosmos, earth and origins. We don't need an explanation of how things came to be, as I argued in the first round, the supernatural explanations are unnecessary.

There is no particular reason to suggest that Christianity is more true than any other myth or fantasy. As (Con) says himself nothing more than our on imagination and wishful thinking.


sagesteppe

Con

I hope I'm following this debate format correctly. Its tempting to debate round 3's rebuttal of my opening argument, but I'm posting just round 2 rebuttals.

1. Rebuttal to The absolute lack of evidence.

Not entirely true. And I'll explain using legal terms. There are two kinds of evidence used in a court of law; direct evidence, and circumstantial evidence. An example of the latter is a fingerprint at the crime scene, thus we can infer that the owner of the fingerprint is connected to the crime. A witness of the crime is a form of direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence of God could include His hand in nature and its design. While I find circumstantial evidence of God's existence to be inspiring, it does not hold strong ground in a debate because it remains a belief, and not tangible fact. However a compelling argument can be made for direct evidence in the form of testimonies of people who have witnessed God in person. In a court of law, one witness is often times enough to make a conviction. The scriptures provide many witnesses.

Rebuttal 2 The Unnecessary explanation

I have to agree with Pro on most of this argument. I don't believe God to be some sort of tyrannical oppressor, who keeps his subjects in ignorance as the Catholic church did. If God created man, he gave us a brain to better understand, utilize, and be good stewards of the earth. All natural things certainly have a scientific explanation or theory to them. None of which are absolute or obsolete. Evolution is the latest theory to the origin of the natural world, and ultimately man. Being a student of evolution, I find it fascinating and convincing. However, such evidences shouldn't overthrow the basic tenants of science. Specifically the overthrow of objective observation. This is how bias enters the scientific realm. I have always admired my mentors who were convinced of evolution privately, but studied and taught in complete neutrality of it, Leaving a space for further exploration.

Also, a theist cannot deny the theory of evolution "because the Bible says so," and an atheist cannot deny God exists cause "science says so"." That's not the objective of science or the bible. Yes, I still remember Pro's stance on atheist absolution to disproving God's existence, but there must be some agreement that belief/nonbelief systems gets in the way of seeing what's in front of us. It doesn't make either one wrong or bad, but participators in life.

New argument- Pro said, "All science is based on reason and not faith." I have to disagree with this assertion, as I find that faith and science share certain qualities.

-application of the scientific method works on previous knowledge to predict the outcome of something unknown. If previous data is lacking, it becomes extremely difficult to make conclusions for future experiments, so in a sense you have faith in previous work to be both precise and accurate.

-likewise faith requires a certain amount of experimentation. I sense a fear from atheists that if they were to convert as a result of spiritual experimentation, they must leave reason and logic behind to embrace ignorance, the kind of ignorance exemplified by many theists. That's simply not true. You can have both science and religion operating in your own sphere. Much like how a person uses the left and right parts of their brain.
Debate Round No. 3
Ceci

Pro

In this round I will counter argument the points my opponent made in round 3.



1. Rebuttal to The absolute lack of evidence
.

- 'Circumstantial evidence of God'

When we look at nature, at the animal kingdom or we look up in the stars, we all feel sense of awe. When we feel the grand scale and the beauty of the world, we are naturally overwhelmed with a sense of desire to worship someone. You don't need to be a believer to feel the magnificence of these expanding universes and black holes, where you almost feel the presence of a creator, you almost feel the presence of a force capable of designing such magnitude. But this has nothing to do with a kind of God who answers prayers and cares about sins. I understand my opponent when he says that he feels inspired by this sheer beauty of the universe. Its that beauty which is the driving force of science, that awe inspiring quest for knowledge that we are after. My opponent mentioned design, I am not sure whether he is talking about the design of the living world. If he is, well he is contradicting himself because in the second rebuttal he explains that he finds evolution convincing. If he does then he understands the mechanics of evolution and knows the explanation of how and why things evolved. There is nothing left for God to explain or interfere. As I explain in my second argument, the God explanation in terms of evolution is unnecessary.



'The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God. ' - Albert Einstein


- 'Direct evidence for God'

As far as people who claim to have seen God, David Hume deals with this very well, he says that in the case of laws of nature you have to ask yourself what is more probable, that the laws of nature have been suspended or that you are in a misapprehension. Science is not interested in that kind of superstitious nonsense.



Rebuttal 2 The Unnecessary explanation

(Con) mentioned that God created man, if that is true I would like to know how, since you understand evolution. What role did God play in the evolution of man, and If he created man in his image, in what image the rest of the living world is created.

'Also, a theist cannot deny the theory of evolution "because the Bible says so," and an atheist cannot deny God exists cause "science says so"." Well, if the Bible contradicts with science we can certainly disprove the supernatural claims. And I also explained the difference in the 'faith problem' in my first argument. If we are talking about evidence we are talking about different kind of belief, such as belief in the scientific method and rational thinking. The blind faith in a personal God is unreasonable, there is no evidence and reason to follow it.


New argument- Pro said, "All science is based on reason and not faith." I have to disagree with this assertion, as I find that faith and science share certain qualities.

We do science in order to be able to make accurate predictions in the natural world. I don't think you can really say that we need to have faith in previous work. If we have testable explanations and proof we don't need faith, that's the whole point, to let us think and act rationally and not depend on a belief system.

Since I didn't put another new arguments in round 3 I will put a question to my opponent. : This is a debate on the existence of God, or a debate on is there any reason to believe in a God, if there is, what are the strongest reasons supporting the claim that God exists, is there something more than just faith, maybe evidence ? And is there any reason to believe in not just a creator, but the Christian God?







sagesteppe

Con

I'm breaking format a bit. I'm posting rebuttals from round 3 and also this round 4.

Faith precedes the physical evidence

Pro has used at least one faith like word---belief. Indeed you need to believe that evolution is truth or fact because evolution is not scientific fact, it's theory. My opponent has put all faith in the theory of evolution, which is completely based on circumstantial evidence. Such as We see a fossil, we carbon date it, thus we can infer a living organism existed 50 mya. Direct evidence of evolution does not exist because no-one has witnessed it. Thus my opponent has faith in something not seen.

Pro describes two kinds of faith, namely blind faith, and informed faith." I too can stick any of my favorite adjectives in front of faith to make it sound even better or worse. The assertion here is that there is no evidence of a deity, so any faith on deity is blind. However I provided at least one form of evidence, so my faith isn't blind. Ultimately, building the term "blind faith" is a strawman for faith in deity as being plain blindness.

Pro said in round 4 "Since I didn't put another new arguments in round 3 I will put a question to my opponent. : This is a debate on the existence of God, or a debate on is there any reason to believe in a God, if there is, what are the strongest reasons supporting the claim that God exists, is there something more than just faith, maybe evidence ? And is there any reason to believe in not just a creator, but the Christian God?"

I'm putting this back on the faith issue. I see fellow theists venture into all sorts of philosophical explanations for God's existence, but I cannot get on the band wagon. It seems to detract from the heart of why we believe, and faith is ultimately the quality that must be explored.

"We do science in order to be able to make accurate predictions in the natural world. I don't think you can really say that we need to have faith in previous work. If we have testable explanations and proof we don't need faith, that's the whole point, to let us think and act rationally and not depend on a belief system."

You paid me a compliment earlier, and I thank you for it, and I should be careful with what I'm about to say because I don't know your background, but can't help but think that you haven't spent much time in a scientific field. Science is full of error. This article confirms my statement.
http://journals.plos.org...

Errors may occur in the execution of a statistical experiment design. Types of experimental error include human error, bias, omission of facts, or mistakes in data entry; systematic error, or mistakes in the design of the experiment itself; or random error, caused by environmental conditions or other unpredictable factors. Many peer reviewed articles admit to it. How many haven't? We don't know unless we go through the erroneous funding process, and redo the experiment exactly. How many researchers have you heard of doing that? Probably none, since scientists are constantly vying for new publication. Yes you do need faith that your colleagues are doing things correctly. Because you depend on their findings to support your hypotheses. Also I keep seeing "science proves". Science doesn't prove anything. Science supports or counters theories or hypotheses. Also science doesn't counter God, because God is not a scientific theory.

2. The idea of God is transcendent

Pro said, "The man made illusion of God, came from the desire for authority."
I invite Pro to substantiate this claim. It seems imaginary. It also contradicts what I have been reading in anthropology, that anthropologists now say that many early social structures were completely egalitarian. And if they were egalitarian, why would they seek an imaginary ruler?

Pro said in round 3" "There is no particular reason to suggest that Christianity is more true than any other myth or fantasy..." and "If (Con) wants to advance on the claim that the Christian God is the right one, I will be happy to hear what he have to say about that, if he do it convincingly." and "Why choose any religion over another, since its based on blind faith."

I'll address all of these in one swoop. It goes back to the idea that the idea of God is transcendent. Christians, Jews, and Muslims share the God of Abraham. Christians and Jews share the same God up until the New Testament. Even Greek gods, and Egyptian gods, etc," bear" similarities to each other. Also If you recall the first book in the Bible, Genesis, was written by Moses via vision of generations of man before his time. The Quran gives account of the creation, Adam and Eve, and reference to 50 other biblical names. This is clearly independent of Moses and Genesis. Who knows what earlier writings existed before the book of Genesis, and in other parts of the world. I'm inclined to believe that they all have a root origin. If there was one God in the beginning, then all variations of God are distortions of the original. So why is my God the true God? Because I rely on scripture, and spiritual apprehensions, and not culture norms or other irrational beliefs to discover His Identity. There isn't a comity to agree on the nature of God. We generally cannot take our diverse ideas and agree on God to form a common god, or a tree trunk. We only branch out and form a "tree crown," and the "leader" or direct line to the trunk is as spindly as the branches. Try this experiment. Put a group of Baptists, Methodists, and Catholics in the same room and tell them to emerge with a homogenized belief in God. Hint, it will be a blood bath. Even in my sect there can be some disagreement on the character of God. Ultimately it is up to the individual to discover who God is to the best of his/her ability. We are only given clues, and we must investigate. In this way, those that seek after God are rational people." If faith is based on irrational premises (fear, popularity, social norms, etc), then your probably not fit to dwell in His kingdom. As far as being rewarded in the hereafter according to our lives, my investigation tells me that those of other faiths will be judged on the truth that was available to them, as well as their desire to better understand.

The absolute lack of evidence.

I conceded to using circumstantial evidence of deity in round 3, yet Pro proceded to argue it. I provided direct evidence of deity, namely prophets, and it was dismissed as superstitious nonsense, or that science is not interested in it. Science cannot express interest in anything, it's a tool for understanding. Because of this inaccuracy, I'll rephrase Pro's statement. Atheists, are not interested in the testimony of the prophets.

The Unnecessary explanation

"(con) mentioned that God created man, if that is true I would like to know how, since you understand evolution. "

I honestly don't know how, but I believe that He did. As a theist, its not important to know how God did it, but that we recognise the formation of the world was made as a testing ground for mankind, whether he used evolution and forming man from clay is symbolic, or if he literally made man from inorganic clay, Holy script doesn't say. That's why evolution shouldn't be scary, because we are free to learn about our natural world.

"Well, if the Bible contradicts with science we can certainly disprove the supernatural claims."

Scientific findings don't have to contradict the Bible. I find that much of the Bible is both symbolic and litteral.
Debate Round No. 4
Ceci

Pro

In this round I will rebuttal the statements made by my opponent in the forth round.


Faith precedes t
he physical evidence


I will begin by saying this - the theory of evolution is a scientific fact. I will borrow a quote from Richard Dawkins from The greatest show on earth, 'Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond reasonable doubt evolution is fact.' There is that huge misunderstanding when people say, theory. Since in the On the Origin of Species, Darwin explains evolution by natural selection which led to the Theory of Evolution, there is not a reputable scientist who disputes it, we know that is a fact because of the rising mountain of evidence supporting it. Scientific theory is not hypothesis.


Theory: A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or
phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is
propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be general laws,
principles, or causes of something known or observed.


'Science is full of error.' I am not sure whether I don't see what you are talking about, or you don't. What I was talking about in the earlier rounds, was that science works. When we have a theory or a set of laws, a general knowledge that can be tested, and the results that we observed, confirmed repeatedly, we come up with facts, proof, it just works. You could possibly persuade me that I trust the scientific method. Why would I not, when we know, that is the most reliable tool for understanding. Unlike faith in the supernatural, we have evidence, we explain how things work. Its not a belief in the absence of evidence. Darwin's theory of evolution, Newton's laws of motion, Einstein's general relativity or any scientific theory, is well tested, observed and explained, we know that it works.

Since you continue to use the cop out word faith, I guess there is no reason or evidence independent of faith that supports your position.


2. The idea of God is transcendent

Since you misunderstood my claim about the man made illusion about the all powerful Big Brother, here it is.

Some of the arguments here does not interfere with the existence of God, but show the huge incompatibility for the personal creator. For about at least 100 000BC, God watched the species made in his own image die with indifference, most often in childbirth. 99,9% of all species ever lived are extinct, my opponent couldn't give an answer to how we are made in the image of God since we now know that we have evolved, we are primates, and we know that for a fact. The all powerful loving Christian God didn't stop any fellow living creature from extinction, and we could have easily been extinct in the mess, let alone all humans dying in childbirth, most often from their teeth, for thousands of years. God didn't gave a ****. When we were conscious enough to fear death, seeking knowledge and understanding, in our first attempts in philosophy, we came up with the concept of a creator. We couldn't explain where we came from, where the universe came from, or why we were here. A creator, was some kind of explanation, better than nothing. An instinct we all share, is the desire to worship something. When we look at the beauty of nature, its tempting to believe in a design, and a designer. People wish to have someone who tells them what to do and takes care of them. Its a man made illusion, that there is an all powerful deity, that answers prayers. Its a comforting thought that you will live forever after your death. Its pleasing to say that God made everything, and we shouldn't research and explain anything more. We have perfectly lazy explanation in the face of a creator. He will take care of everything and we must only worship our Big Brother. Its a totalitarian claim. We must tell our own children that they are born in sin, and that they must believe in something without evidence in order to be saved. Its a desire to be owned by someone, its sadomasochism, a desire to a slave. If there was a loving God, there wouldn't have been so much death, torture, famine, genocide, slavery and evil done to Christians or by Christians. Millions of people died in religious wars. Imagine how they must have prayed to be saved. How did God let all this happened?


The absolute lack of evidence.

What I meant by science not being interested in the personal experiences of people meeting God, etc., was that this doesn't stand any power as evidence in support for the existence of God. If that is the best direct evidence you could give, I am not impressed.

The claim that we are made in the image of God, is false. We evolved from apes, and we have common ancestry with other animals. I still have to as my opponent, and I expect an answer to that claim. And also in what image the other animals are made in?


I didn't see a good argument made by my opponent in this debate, if he wants, I will be happy to have another one. I don't know if there is something I missed to answer, I hope not. If there is let me know, but since this is the last round, please don't make any new arguments that I will not have the chance to answer. Thanks for the debate.


sagesteppe

Con

I" would like to give credit to the great atheist, Richard Dawkins," to use semantics and spread confusion about scientific definitions and drive his belief in non belief deeper into culture.

Lets look again at scientific definitions

Definition of Scientific theory: is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

As you can see it is more than just opinion, or conjecture, and doesn't discount it's validity.

Scientific fact: is" a repeatable or verifiable observation. Much like observing population genetics, or fossil record.

The part of evolution we are concerned with in this debate is the origin of new species. Has this been observed? No. Evidence for evolution continues to be accumulated and tested. It's well supported, but if it were scientific fact, then why do we continue to test it, or why is there a need to support it? Evolution remains theory." Pro and Richard Dawkins both have faith in something not seen.

Here's a more broad definition Faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Exercising faith or belief is a very basic quality needed in human life. Any contemporary philosopher will confirm that. Those who profess that they can deny themselves of such a quality, and operate entirely on logic and reason, is feeding you a line.

Pro persists to claim I haven't provided evidence of God. I have repeatedly offered at least one, plus an ontological explanation. Its clear that Pro views faith as irrational especially with a lack of tangible or circumstantial evidence. As I have pointed out before, I cannot provide a relic, a fingerprint, or anything tangible other than perhaps the fact We posses ancient scripture, but I can offer my testimony of personal spirituality, or that I have witnessed miracles that defy the statistical prediction of the outcome." As I rephrased before. Atheists are not interested in that, because it requires relying on someone's word. Its a general distrust. I refuse to live life without trust in other people. I'm inclined to test people and their word, and ultimately continue to trust or distrust, much like any relationship. Some religions/churches are examples of particularly bad relationships, but that shouldn't prevent one from seeking out a meaningful one.

The idea of God is transcendent.

My opponent brought out the argument "of God exists, then why do bad things happen?

Because mortal life is prerequisite to immortality. The bad things that happen here refines and sanctifies the soul in preparation for eternity. Its presumptuous to believe that God is some sort of welfare nanny. That He will interfere with every motive of mankind. That takes away from our ability to self improve, and be self reliant. Again this perspective of a nanny state points to the complete absence studying out God. Its certainly easier to just not believe.

Upon writing this rebuttal I tried to exclude any new arguments, so that this will be my final statement. In The course of this debate I have been put to the fire, frustrated, enlightened by discovery to defend my position, and obtained a deeper conviction of my stance. I'm sure my opponent can say the same. I sincerely thank my opponent for the debate.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ceci 5 months ago
Ceci
I will say it again, I am not trying to influence you, but I will say this, Its my first debate and I thought that if I can make enough good arguments that's enough. I don't feel I need to support my arguments with sources or even research to improve my point. I didn't even know that I had to 'state' that the burden of proof is the beginning, I thought that its obvious when you are talking about God. As an non believer I am not the one that need to explain why I don't believe in God, its obviously the theistic position to support his belief. In the end, only the arguments matter, but that's just me.
Posted by Ceci 5 months ago
Ceci
I will say it again, I am not trying to influence you, but I will say this, Its my first debate and I thought that if I can make enough good arguments that's enough. I don't feel I need to support my arguments with sources or even research to improve my point. I didn't even know that I had to 'state' that the burden of proof is the beginning, I thought that its obvious when you are talking about God. As an non believer I am not the one that need to explain why I don't believe in God, its obviously the theistic position to support his belief. In the end, only the arguments matter, but that's just me.
Posted by Ockham 5 months ago
Ockham
I'm not trying to be critical. Here is all I am saying: If you had cited two or three reputable sources and firmly established that Con had the burden of proof, I would have voted for five points in your favor. You will probably do better in your next debate about God if you keep those two things in mind.
Posted by Ceci 5 months ago
Ceci
I am just saying, not trying to influence you. Thanks for the advice.
Posted by Ockham 5 months ago
Ockham
Ceci, again, I can't vote on this, I am just trying to help you improve. There is no point in trying to influence me, so I recommend just taking my points as constructive criticism.
Posted by Ceci 5 months ago
Ceci
And my opponent made some dishonest points in the 5th round.
Posted by Ceci 5 months ago
Ceci
And my opponent made some dishonest points in the 5th round.
Posted by Ceci 5 months ago
Ceci
You are saying that the 5th round was the best for me, well in this round I counter argumented my opponents strongest round.
Posted by Ockham 5 months ago
Ockham
I can't vote on this, but I'll give some comments to help you guys improve.

First, there were very few sources given in this debate. That would be one way for you two to improve your debating - do some research and look up credible sources that you can quote when debating this. If one of you had quoted two or three more credible sources, you would probably have gotten the sources points. As it is, I wouldn't give the sources points to either side.

In my opinion, round 4 was Con's strongest round, and round 5 was Pro's strongest round. However, there were not very many actual, developed arguments given over the course of the debate. I think if I was voting on this it would have to come down to who had the burden of proof, but since that was never clearly established (in my opinion) I would vote for tie on arguments as well.
Posted by Ceci 6 months ago
Ceci
I am not saying that I can prove that god does not exist, nobody can do that. I am arguing that there is no evidence for the exictence of a devine creator. I see you are agnostic.
No votes have been placed for this debate.