The Instigator
alexpr
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
mercedzdanz
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points

God exist or not ?

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,522 times Debate No: 11193
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (5)

 

alexpr

Con

Are you prove that GOD is exist?
mercedzdanz

Pro

I thank my antagonist for challenging me to this debate.

(1) My opponent's argument suffers from circular reasoning and is preclusive.

God by definition is supernatural. If my opponent adheres to the view that everything can only be explained naturalistically, then he precludes the very possibility of any explanation counting as evidence for the supernatural. The theist is hard put to document his claims for the existence of the supernatural if he is in effect forbidden from evoking the supernatural as a part of his explanation. For example, if my computer vaporized into a green mist, my opponent would eventually have in the future some naturalistic explanation because his world view does not allow for the supernatural.

(2) My opponent has presupposed the naturalistic explanation without backing it up.

He has failed to back up his claims.

(3) My opponent's bare explanation still allows for the possibility of a God.

His conclusion, in effect is, God does not exist because everything can be explained naturalistically. My question is, why doesn't God exist? Even if we assume a naturalistic explanation, how does that preclude the existence of God? His only rebuttal can be that the naturalistic explanation is sufficient and omniscient. He has failed to show that.

(4) My opponent's conclusion can not logically make the claim that God does not exist.

In order to state that God does not exist, my opponent would have to know all the knowledge in the universe to state that God does not exist. At best, my opponent can only state that all of the alleged proofs he has seen thus far, none have worked, or he can even say that he believes there are no proofs for God's existence. But then, this means there is the possibility that there is a proof or proofs out there, and that he simply has not yet encountered one.

(4) The naturalistic view in life is not the sole arbiter of truth.

The naturalistic view can not account for the existence of moral values, aesthetics, anything that is beyond the scope of the natural world, logic, and even the naturalistic view itself. For example, the naturalistic explanation can not quantify why I love my wife, or why poetry speaks to one person and not another. Not everything is quantifiable and repeatable through observation.

(5) Your presuppositions will affect how you weigh the evidence and proofs.

I did not pick up this debate to "prove" God because personally, I don't think it's profitable to do so because I have seen well-reasoned responses on every single point/counterpoint from both theists and atheists. I will, however make a very conservative statement and say that, "it is reasonable to believe in the existence of God." If you want me to, we can get into Kalam's Cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the transcendental argument, the evidentiary argument, the morality argument, etc. And really, in the end, it would amount to both sides just using shoddy research in "Wikipedia." Let's leave that up to the experts in the field. But ultimately, the heart of my point is that, (a) we just have to be aware that all of us take certain things for granted because of our presuppositions, and the (b) reasons why we take one thing for granted over another has more to do with our feelings about what that granted thing means to us on an emotional level.
Debate Round No. 1
alexpr

Con

alexpr forfeited this round.
mercedzdanz

Pro

Posting so I don't forfeit.
Debate Round No. 2
alexpr

Con

alexpr forfeited this round.
mercedzdanz

Pro

Extending my argument to this round.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
Judging from the comments, he must have created the debate with a different opening round, then changed it later on. Pro must have taken it without realising.
Posted by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
"My opponent has presupposed the naturalistic explanation without backing it up."
"My opponent's bare explanation"
"My opponent's argument"

I don't believe he asserted, assumed, argued, explained, or presupposed anything.
Posted by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
Ah, mercedzdanz, I've heard it referred to as the historicity argument before. That makes sense now.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Lol, the irony of the argument title and the actual argument is laugh-worthy.
Posted by mercedzdanz 6 years ago
mercedzdanz
The evidentiary argument basically establishes the (1) reliability of the New Testament, (2) the death of Jesus on a cross, (3) the tomb in which Jesus was sent, and (4) the missing body in the tomb.
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
'Are you prove that God exist?'

Even my grammars not that bad, and its very bad.
Posted by infam0us 6 years ago
infam0us
Are I prove that God exist?
Posted by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
Are you prove that God exist?
Posted by The_Monsieur 6 years ago
The_Monsieur
"The naturalistic view can not account for the existence of moral values, aesthetics..."

Rubbish.
Posted by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
He did change it. And mercedzdanz what do you mean by the "evidentiary argument"? I don't think I've ever heard of that.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
alexprmercedzdanzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't forfeit, argued well, and was consistently better in his spelling and grammar, in comparison to Con.
Vote Placed by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
alexprmercedzdanzTied
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 
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8
alexprmercedzdanzTied
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 
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
alexprmercedzdanzTied
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 
Vote Placed by mercedzdanz 6 years ago
mercedzdanz
alexprmercedzdanzTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06