The Instigator
Feyerabend
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Addison98
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

God exists with a probability in the range of 0.006

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/22/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 462 times Debate No: 77994
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Feyerabend

Pro

This is my result can you amend it ?
Addison98

Con

I'm going to assume round 1 is an acceptance round. I accept the debate and I look forward to it.

I'm also going to assume that by "God" you mean the God that created the Heavens and Earths. As in the only God that the Bible talks about.

If I am correct to assume that, then I look forward to a good debate. I also look forward to see where your .006 probability came from.

Thank you and good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Feyerabend

Pro

My apologies it is from a debate show where Dawkins to the best of my recall offered a .006 region of probability. I am referring to a scientific God in the sense provability. If you go for atheism as a low probability assignment I think it is possible to prove the statement God exists from any such assignment. That does not make such a proof of a God of religion.
I had hoped to encounter an athiest they seem to run shy of offering any actual probability assignment.

To make the debate interesting suppose I had instead made assignment from a probability filter over incompleteness of physics, a probability assignment to every even has a cause and probability measure of global inter subjectively derived assignment of belief and got that number.
The God of faith can be proved .or anything you suggest.
Addison98

Con

The Bible has proven to be historically accurate. In fact, it's proven to be more accurate than any other ancient book.
Two of the greatest 20th-century archaeologists, William F. Albright and Nelson Glueck, both lauded the Bible (even though they were non-Christian and secular in their training and personal beliefs) as being the single most accurate source document from history. Over and over again, the Bible has been found to be accurate in its places, dates, and records of events. No other "religious" document comes even close.
The names of over 40 different kings of various countries mentioned in the Bible have all been found in contemporary documents and inscriptions outside of the Old Testament, and are always consistent with the times and places associated with them in the Bible. Nothing exists in ancient literature that has been even remotely as well-confirmed in accuracy as has the Bible.
Historical evidence routinely includes ancient literature, business records, and government documents, analyzed in conjunction with linguistics, geography, and archaeological analysis of physical objects (pottery, coins, remains of buildings, etc.), using forensic science techniques.

I say all of this because I'm going to use scripture to defend that God exists with a probability much higher than .006. Scripture is in the Bible and the Bible has been proven to be historically correct.

In Genesis 18:1-2, God and two angels come to Abraham while he was at his tent. Abraham gets up and bows down before his Lord. God came that day to tell Abraham he would be the father of many angels.

Conclusion:
God physically comes to earth in the bible, the bible has been proven to be historically correct, therefore God has a much higher probability of existing than .006.

Thank you and good luck.

Sources:
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Feyerabend

Pro

Feyerabend forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Feyerabend

Pro

It is an error to reason from the words of the bible to God's existence. Without looking too some apparent contradictions in the Bible there is the more fundamental of using the lesser to prove the greater.
1) It is theologically unsound to place more weight on a created thing than God. Without God the Bible is nothing not the other way round
2) To cross this bound is idolatrous.
3) The fact that the Bible is important because of what it says and what it is for but is valuable only for the truths it expresses.
4) Uncorroborated second person evidence dos not count in a court of law as evidence and should not in general.
Addison98

Con

Rebuttals:

1. I was not saying God is nothing without The Bible. I was simply using God's Word(The Bible) to help prove his existence.

2. So by me reading the Bible to better prove God's existence is idolatry? That doesn't even make any sense. I in no way worshipped the bible.

3. That doesn't even make any sense.

4. This isn't the court of law and your opinion that it "should not in general" is irrelevant.

5. You say the bible contradicts itself? Where? I've never read any contradictions and I would love to be able to read about them if I could.

6. You say it's wrong to use the lesser to prove the greater. Yet how God is the greatest and most powerful in existence. So anything I use to prove his existence is going to be "lesser". God gave us The Bible so we could learn about him and learn the right way to live life so how can you say I can't use it to prove the greater?

Contentions:

1. Medical doctors all over the world are working together to document the countless healing miracles that are a very powerful reality on this planet. Some people choose to deny it, but those who get healed and the doctors who verify these healing miracles, know better: there is a God who heals. These medical doctors have already scientifically documented hundreds of healing miracles.

2. The Bible speaks about the supernatural gifts of the holy Spirit that God gives to believers in Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 12 & 14). These gifts are meant to encourage one another through the power, the love and the voice of God.

3. Despite of you not liking second person evidence, two scientists have formalized a theorem regarding the existence of God penned by mathematician Kurt G"del. I pasted the article below so you can continue to read it if you choose.

4. Final point, burden of proof is on you. Yet, so far you have done nothing to prove God exists with a probability of .006.

Sources:

http://arxiv.org...
http://abcnews.go.com...
Debate Round No. 4
Feyerabend

Pro

Feyerabend forfeited this round.
Addison98

Con

Extend.

I wish you had been able to finish the final round. Pro forfeited which results in an automatic win for Con.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Addison98 2 years ago
Addison98
father of many nations**
Posted by Feyerabend 2 years ago
Feyerabend
try atguing for a higher degree of probability.
Posted by TyroneShelton 2 years ago
TyroneShelton
So you're saying there is still a chance?
Posted by Addison98 2 years ago
Addison98
I'm now confused on what the debate is even about. What you said in the current round doesn't make sense to me.
Posted by Alpha3141 2 years ago
Alpha3141
So where did you get that number from?
Posted by Feyerabend 2 years ago
Feyerabend
A real nuber may be said to capture a range in the following sense 0.1 captures 2 numbers in the ranges 0.10,0.11,0.12...0.19 each in turn expressing ranges themeselves
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
What is the denominator to 0.006?
No votes have been placed for this debate.