The Instigator
Vapeo
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
finn.b14
Con (against)
Tied
0 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 396 times Debate No: 89607
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Vapeo

Pro

In this debate I will be arguing that God exists. Specifically of the Christian variety.

First round is definitions and acceptance.

Objective- intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings

Morality- principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior

Evil- profoundly immoral and malevolent

God- (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being

Good luck, and I hope this is a good debate.
finn.b14

Con

I accept the definitions put forward by the pro side but query the religious views of the speaker. I feel that this debate could quickly become bias or unintentionally offensive if this is not addressed first.
Debate Round No. 1
Vapeo

Pro

My argument will revolve around morality, but I will definitely answer concerns that my opponent has about other areas of my contention. My opponent did raise concerns about my religious views, and quite simply, I am a Christian thinker/philosopher.

My argument is as follows.

Evil in the world exists. Therefore morality must exist. Morality must be objective, because it would contradict itself otherwise.

So objective morality exists.

If God doesn"t exist, objective morality doesn"t exist.
Objective morality however does exist, so God exists.

Premise 1. Evil exists
Premise 2. Objective morality exists
Premise 3. Objective morality without God is impossible.

Conclusion: God exists.
finn.b14

Con

As a non-Christian, I fail to agree with one of the premises put forward by the opposition.

Premise 1: Evil exists.
I agree with this premise however do not fully understand the scope of the term- evil.

Premise 2: Objective morality exists
As with the first premise, I agree. If something is to exist, its opposite must exist also.

Premise 3: Morality without god is impossible
I can think of many examples of how morality exists without the requirement of God. Morality exists within all of our population whether the concerned are religious or not. Someone can be evil and not have religious affiliations. I believe that the case put forward by the opposition is not a valid statement and is flawed.
Debate Round No. 2
Vapeo

Pro

My opponent agrees with premise number one. This is a fairly straightforward statement, meaning essentially that things of great moral wrongness occur in the world. By definition, evil existing means that there are some thing that are bad and should not happen, namely, evil. So me and my opponent both agree that nihilism as a belief is incompatible with reality.

Premise number two logically follows from premise 1. This means that if evil actually exists, there has to be a system of right and wrong. Only ONE system. I emphasize one here because if there are multiple systems of right and wrong, differing in just one aspect, it cannot be said that any actions are morally correct. Why? Because, proponents of any one belief could easily claim they are right with equal prerogative. This would be subjective morality, which isn"t really morality at all. Now, if my opponent wants to defend subjective morality, he can go ahead to do so, and I will debunk it. If my opponent agrees with me that objective morality exists, that is to say only ONE system of right or wrong independent of humans, we can proceed to premise 3.

If there is only one system of right and wrong, where could that system originate? Not from human opinion, because humans can disagree. Not on evolution, because it is a changing mechanism. It must be from a valid unquestionable source. Think about it. Also, to expand on premise 2, I would like to say that in order for objective morality to exists, is must be knowable. That means that is possible to learn what is right or wrong. If this were not the case, then nothing would matter, as no one would be able to objectively justify their actions.

Speaking of justifying actions"

If I am a programmer, lets say of the game Madden mobile, and I decide to add a rule that limits the amount of games you are allowed to play, that"s my prerogative. I have made the game, and I have the right to make the rules. If you don"t like it, don"t play right?

In this example, some people would agree that reducing the amount of games you could play would be wrong, or unfair. But is it? I would say no. It is neither good nor bad. It is amoral. Deciding on the rules of a game that you make yourself is not morally wrong. It can be annoying to some, but there isn"t a rule that says, Thou must maketh games so that everyone can win automatically. Here my actions are justified, because I am the one who made the game.

In order for you to be aware of a moral right or wrong, it must be either innate, or learned. In the case of innate morality, it still must be supplemented with additional parts of the system of morality. Babies aren"t murderers, but you still have to teach them manners right?

It is very obvious that in order to know something, one must either be the originator of that knowledge, or have it conveyed to you through some medium. Assuming everyone learns from each other, we all pick up ideas of right and wrong from each other. But the real question is, who was the first person that knew about morality? Who enforces morality? And why do we believe them?

I argue that the only possible way for objective morality to exist is in a world where a God exists.
This is my third premise, and since my opponent agrees (presumably) with my first two premises, the only way for him to win this debate is to prove this wrong. Otherwise, he argues subjective morality, which I will quickly debunk. It is important to note that if my third premise is upheld as true, my conclusion necessarily follows, which is to say that God must exist.

(My opponent actually misquoted my third premise, leaving out the objective part.)

Lastly, in order to disprove my third premise, my opponent must at least provide an alternative world in which objective morality exists, but God doesn"t.

Thank you.
finn.b14

Con

The path in which this debate is travelling along is a well worn road. Points brought forward by the affirmative can be simmered down to the famous (or infamous) debate of whether our existence upon this planet is due to the work of God or natural selection (i.e evolution).

Hence a debate such as this can become a competition between two equally determined forces that leads to no unanimous resolution. However, as this is a debate, I will rebut the cases put forward by the affirmative and then commence to raise my own arguments regarding the topic stated ('God Exists').

To begin my case I ask the question: what was it that God revealed to man? He did not reveal science as the whole structure of physical science as been gradually built up by man. He did not teach man geology, astronomy, chemistry, biology nor did he teach man how to cure disease. God did not teach man agriculture, mathematics or any form of the arts. Solely, man developed the steam engine, the aeroplane, the submarine, the telegraph and the wireless. These things are indispensable and without them- civilisation would be impossible. These advances made by men are behaviours that would have taken place whether man had heard of God or not.

So, what is there left for God to have originally given men? The affirmative states that is morality; the ten commandments. God told man not to steal, commit murder and for children to honour their parents. In upmost importance though, God told man to honour him above anything else because without their loyalty- decency would disappear from human society despite the many advances that men have made over their generations of existence.

The Oxford Dictionary define morality as: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. Some examples of morality (as explained in the ten commandments) are the love for a child by their mother and the idea that murdering another human is an evil doing.

In frankness, I do not understand how the affirmative can believe that man (inventor and discoverer of so many great feats) would not be able to discover these traits sowed deep into our society for themselves. Today, a non-Christian mother can love her child more than a Christian one does. The reverse is also true. If we are to use the affirmative's 'game analogy', although the creator of the game can be placed in an amoral state- the players of the game are powerful enough to sense an evil within an unjust set of rules and, if given the power to adjust the game code, CAN create a more 'moral' version of the game where all players benefit.

In summary, a person can be moral without religious beliefs and this can further be proved by the fact that animals of a different species to us have a sense of right and wrong without being Christian. The alternate world that the affirmative persists that I create is not alternate but in fact that one in which we have and continue to live in today.
Debate Round No. 3
Vapeo

Pro

"To begin my case I ask the question: what was it that God revealed to man? He did not reveal science as the whole structure of physical science as been gradually built up by man. He did not teach man geology, astronomy, chemistry, biology nor did he teach man how to cure disease. God did not teach man agriculture, mathematics or any form of the arts. Solely, man developed the steam engine, the aeroplane, the submarine, the telegraph and the wireless. These things are indispensable and without them- civilisation would be impossible. These advances made by men are behaviours that would have taken place whether man had heard of God or not." (Opponent)

Firstly and primarily, whether God has revealed anything to man has no finality on whether he exists or not. God could exist and willingly choose not to reveal things to men. The point my opponent is trying to raise is extremely weak. It is also a logical fallacy, specifically an argument from ignorance. Even if I chose to debate this further, even though it clearly does not affect my argument or create one for my opponent, I could easily say that God inspires some people to discover things, which is a reasonable assertion that could be supported. In short, this argument is fallacious and thus can be disregarded.

""So, what is there left for God to have originally given men? The affirmative states that is morality; the ten commandments. (I am sorry, but I am sure I did not mention the ten commandments.) God told man not to steal, commit murder and for children to honour their parents. In upmost importance though, God told man to honour him above anything else because without their loyalty- decency would disappear from human society despite the many advances that men have made over their generations of existence.

The Oxford Dictionary define morality as: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. Some examples of morality (as explained in the ten commandments) are the love for a child by their mother and the idea that murdering another human is an evil doing."" (opponent)

I agree with this, for the most part.

""In frankness, I do not understand how the affirmative can believe that man (inventor and discoverer of so many great feats) would not be able to discover these traits sowed deep into our society for themselves. Today, a non-Christian mother can love her child more than a Christian one does. The reverse is also true. If we are to use the affirmative's 'game analogy', although the creator of the game can be placed in an amoral state- the players of the game are powerful enough to sense an evil within an unjust set of rules and, if given the power to adjust the game code, CAN create a more 'moral' version of the game where all players benefit."" (opponent)

Interestingly enough, my opponent again opts to apply another fallacious argument. He crafts an argument from personal incredulity, saying, ""I do not understand how the affirmative can believe that man (inventor and discoverer of so many great feats) would not be able to discover these traits sowed deep into our society for themselves."" However, he does not actually provide any sort of evidence that man is able to discover morality himself. He just asserts this, and implies that I am clearly wrong, all without evidence. My opponent also seems to be building a strawman, because he makes it seem as though I said non- Christians cannot be moral, even though I said no such thing. Again, if I were to continue with this fallacious argument, I would say this, "Yes humans can innately sense morality, but what if God put it there?"

""In summary, a person can be moral without religious beliefs and this can further be proved by the fact that animals of a different species to us have a sense of right and wrong without being Christian. The alternate world that the affirmative persists that I create is not alternate but in fact that one in which we have and continue to live in today."" (opponent)

Once again, the objective of my opponent was to either create a reasonable argument as to why God does not exist, or to reasonable disprove my premises. My opponent chooses instead to continue his straw man argument, making it seem as though i stated that non Christians cannot be moral, even though I stated no such thing.

In addition, my opponent also appeals to nature (also fallacious), in order to "prove" that people can have morals without being Christian.

No one was disputing that.

In summary, I have made arguments, my opponent has made logical fallacies, so I will wait until my opponent either rebuts my claims or premises, or makes a valid logical argument.
finn.b14

Con

The affirmative has regarded all of my arguments as 'fallacious'. He stated that they did not stand for the non-existence of God. Clearly the opposition did not understand my intentions of refuting his own original point that objective morality cannot exist without the presence of God.

When the opposition stated this, I proved the point incorrect via my rebuttal which the affirmative later regarded as invalid towards my point. This disregard for my points remained the basis for the affirmative's arguments but in clarity was fallacious itself.

To reinstate validity into this debate I bring forward 8 reasons of my own as to why God does not exist starting with the point discussed earlier.

1. Morality does not require any religious belief. Many people believe that without religion, the planet will descend into immoral chaos. The reality is that the majority of heinous crimes committed against people on this planet across all of recorded history have their roots in religious beliefs. However, the ability to distinguish right from wrong does not require any religious beliefs. In addition, animals who are incapable of understanding our human concept of religion show clear evidence of instinctual understanding of moral behaviour and distinguishing between right and wrong.

2. The belief that there is science in religion is incorrect. Scientists can understand 4% of the universe and this statement explains the difference between science and religion. The former is willing to reconsider ideas, theories, laws and rules put forward as long as there is evidence to disprove them. Is the opposition capable of reconsidering their opinions or did they enter this debate with a fixed opinion in mind?

3. "The mortal enemy of faith is knowledge." This is a scientific fact that has been demonstrated by researchers at the University of British Columbia. The basis of any religion is that you must believe something someone else tells you is true, even though your mind tells you it is false and it makes no sense to you. There is name for that: fideism. Without fideism -- "exclusive reliance in religious matters upon faith, with consequent rejection of appeals to science or philosophy." -- the concept of religion would not exist.

4. The roots of religion can be easily challenged. e.g: the "devil" was not present in religious texts until the nomadic monotheists ran into polytheists and borrowed the idea.

5. Religion, throughout history, has been used to control the masses, rather than enlighten them. An example of this includes the Christian crusades, and the present day suicide bombings by Muslims. If this is the purpose of religion, religion itself seems to be morally incorrect.

6. In the case of the Bible, entire verses, stories and anecdotes were falsified for the sake of making a point. Even the concept of the "holy trinity" is a fabrication created not by any god, but for political reasons by a zealot named Theophilus of of Antioch in 412 AD. Plot holes, inconsistencies and illogical, impossible things can all be exploited by atheists.

7. Religion has often been used to explain the unexplainable. The Greeks used Poseidon to explain how earthquakes happen, which we now know is due to the movement of tectonic plates to relieve pressure. What happens when you can prove, and others can't deny, the Big Bang theory and the sequence of Evolution, which both have such large amounts of logic behind them that it's hard to deny that they are true. This can be referred as the "The God of the gaps" factor.

8. Christians believe that God is omniscient and knows everything has happened and will happen. They also believe that God knows every thought our mind will create before we think it. In this case, is there indeed free will? They also believe that God is omnipotent and can do anything. If God can do anything but doesn't lift a finger to stop all the disasters, massacres and wars that have happened, are happening now and will happen in the future- does that make him a psychopath who enjoys watching our misery.

The bible states that God gives us free will and allows the outcomes of evil choices until you die. This makes him neither omniscient nor omnipotent and in that case... not a 'god' and therefore non-existent.
Debate Round No. 4
Vapeo

Pro

"The affirmative has regarded all of my arguments as 'fallacious'... (opponent)

The main reasons I labeled my opponent"s argument fallacious were because they were indeed fallacious.

"1. Morality does not require any religious belief. Many people believe that without religion, the planet will descend into immoral chaos. The reality is that the majority of heinous crimes committed against people on this planet across all of recorded history have their roots in religious beliefs. However, the ability to distinguish right from wrong does not require any religious beliefs. In addition, animals who are incapable of understanding our human concept of religion show clear evidence of instinctual understanding of moral behaviour and distinguishing between right and wrong." (Opponent)

I agree with you that morality doesn"t require religious belief. You don"t have to believe or know something is right to be doing the right thing. No one is disagreeing with this point, and including it in your argument is either a red herring or a strawman, and that is definitely fallacious.

"2. The belief that there is science in religion is incorrect. Scientists can understand 4% of the universe and this statement explains the difference between science and religion. The former is willing to reconsider ideas, theories, laws and rules put forward as long as there is evidence to disprove them. Is the opposition capable of reconsidering their opinions or did they enter this debate with a fixed opinion in mind?" (opponent)

My opponent made the claim that Scientists can understand 4% of the universe. This is clearly unreasonable, and at best irrelevant to this discussion. Whether or not scientist can understand 4% of the universe has no impact on whether God exists or not. What if God is in the other 96%?Science is defined as the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. It is possible to become religious through scientific means, while continuing to be a scientist. Therefore, my opponent"s implicit claim or suggestion that Science and Religion are always mutually exclusive cannot be taken seriously. For example, if I as a theist am provided with sufficient evidence that Allah exists, I will convert to Islam. If I am provided with evidence for agnosticism, I will proceed to convert. But in all of my efforts, I have scientifically been presented with the most evidence for Christianity. I am not Christian for fun. I don"t believe off of blind faith, that is actually the opposite of what the bible teaches. Lastly, I don"t need to have an open mind if I already have the truth. The question is, does God exists, and by extension, "if so, which?".

"3. "The mortal enemy of faith is knowledge." This is a scientific fact that has been demonstrated by researchers at the University of British Columbia. The basis of any religion is that you must believe something someone else tells you is true, even though your mind tells you it is false and it makes no sense to you. There is name for that: fideism. Without fideism -- "exclusive reliance in religious matters upon faith, with consequent rejection of appeals to science or philosophy." -- the concept of religion would not exist." (opponent)

That is not a scientific fact, that is a subjective quote. 2+2=4 is a fact, faith and knowledge being opposites is an opinion. The basis of Christianity is Christ and his teachings. Faith comes as a result of being convinced that something is true. You aren"t forced to be a Christian. But if you have found that Christ did indeed exist and what he said was indeed true, then you definitely should listen to what Christ said to do. THEN, and only then does faith come in. Jesus said he was the way, the truth, and the life. You can either accept or reject that statement as true or false, but you cannot imply that all religions are somehow lacking of substance, purely based on faith. When Christians say we have faith in God, this doesn"t mean we believe Him without evidence. This simply means that we do not know everything, but we trust that God knows the best for us. So in summary I reject this idea of my opponent, because it is false.

"4. The roots of religion can be easily challenged. e.g: the "devil" was not present in religious texts until the nomadic monotheists ran into polytheists and borrowed the idea." (opponent)

This is completely irrelevant to whether or not God exists. Red herring.
Plus, it doesn"t matter where the religion originated, it matters if it is true or not.

"5. Religion, throughout history, has been used to control the masses, rather than enlighten them. An example of this includes the Christian crusades, and the present day suicide bombings by Muslims. If this is the purpose of religion, religion itself seems to be morally incorrect." (opponent)

The religion itself is not necessarily morally incorrect, it is just being used by corrupt people. Saying Christianity is wrong because there are some people out there that do bad things and call themselves Christians is like saying all Muslims are members of ISIS. Or that all atheists are stupid just because some of them are. This point is totally invalid.

"6. In the case of the Bible, entire verses, stories and anecdotes were falsified for the sake of making a point. Even the concept of the "holy trinity" is a fabrication created not by any god, but for political reasons by a zealot named Theophilus of of Antioch in 412 AD. Plot holes, inconsistencies and illogical, impossible things can all be exploited by atheists." (opponent)

I need evidence for this extreme claim. How can you say that the holy trinity is a fabrication, if you are not sure whether or not there is one? Who else said in GENESIS, "Come let "US" make man in "OUR" image? Was God insane and talking to himself? As an atheist, don"t presume to tell Christians which part of their belief is accurate or not. Just stick to refuting the dumb and errant arguments, and intelligent Christians will provide meaningful ones that can further our knowledge on the topic of God and religion.

"7. Religion has often been used to explain the unexplainable. The Greeks used Poseidon to explain how earthquakes happen, which we now know is due to the movement of tectonic plates to relieve pressure... (opponent)

Once again, none of this says anything on whether or not God exists or not. Plus I detect an association fallacy being used. The Big Bang Theory is well substantiated, but it cannot be said that it necessarily must be true. Some big scientific discovery may come along and dispel the Big Bang Theory. Nothing here stated by my opponent disproves God in any way.

"8. Christians believe that God is omniscient and knows everything has happened and will happen. They also believe that God knows every thought our mind will create before we think it. In this case, is there indeed free will? They also believe that God is omnipotent and can do anything. If God can do anything but doesn't lift a finger to stop all the disasters, massacres and wars that have happened, are happening now and will happen in the future- does that make him a psychopath who enjoys watching our misery."

If you knew with 100% certainty that somebody else was going to drink a cup of water at twelve at noon, does this mean that the person didn"t choose to do so? Of course not! They chose to drink the water, and you just so happened to know that they would. Thus, foreknowledge is compatible with free choice, and so this portion of your argument doesn"t work.

Additionally, Christians believe that God is the source of morality. You cannot make a moral judgement (a negative one) on God, because God is the ultimate good (if he exists). So your personal disgust with God doesn"t disprove him. If God exists, it doesn"t matter that he allows people to get hurt, or some things that you perceive as bad to happen. He has the right to do that because he is God.

Additionally, as Christians, we believe that God orchestrates things for the ultimate good. So even if it looks bad now, God has a plan in which people can be saved, and rescued from the inevitable evils that occur. Of course, this point my opponent raised is somewhat understandable, but it doesn"t disprove God. It just makes him seem evil. That is why it is called the Problem of Evil. Of course, at best, all this argument says is that God may or may not exist, but if he does exist, he is pretty mean, IN MY OPINION. I stress the opinion part, because, just because humans, from their limited perspective, form the opinion that God is evil, doesn"t mean he truly is evil. He may have motives or valid reasons for allowing what occurs in this world. We do not know why, and we cannot claim to know why. Therefore, we should not attempt to condemn God for his own actions.

To conclude, out of all my opponents points, he presented 4 fallacious arguments (1,4,5, and 7), 3 ignorant and false arguments (2,3, and 6), but only one semi-legitimate argument, (8).

Even so, all my opponent was capable of doing was to say, God may or may not exist, but if he does, I don"t like him. I could reverse his last argument by stating, the only reason why you are able to morally condemn God is because there is an objective moral system. Some people inadvertently follow some of it, but God is the only basis of it, I assert, and my opponent has been unable to disprove that. So in short, evil exists, objective morals exist, and lastly God is the only possible basis for objective moral values. It follows logically and necessarily then, that God must exist. Assuming now that my opponent accepts my premises, he must accept my conclusion, in which case he should seriously consider becoming agnostic at least, if not Christian.

Hats of to my opponent for a great debate. I hope we both can find the ultimate truth. Good luck everyone.
Vote well!
finn.b14

Con

In the last round I raised several points regarding the non-existence of God. The affirmative denied each of these and for my final case I will explain why this denial was wrong and will provide further evidence as to why God does not exist.

1. MORALITY DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY RELGIOUS BELIEF
Whilst the affirmative began the debate with the phrase 'objective morality without God is impossible', they ended the debate by stating 'Morality doesn't require religious belief... no one is disagreeing with this point'. This is highly contradictory and needs to have been clarified by the affirmative. Whilst they previously argue that morality is different to objective morality... morality is by definition OBJECTIVE!

Proof that God does not exist comes from the fact that God supposedly gave us morality and yet my points have clearly shown that he did not. If God did not give us morality as is stated, who did? The answer to this question is humans themselves. From the beginning of civilisation humans have developed a sense of morality and to say all these advances were the work of God would be (to quote the affirmative) fallacious.

2. THERE IS NO SCIENCE IN RELIGION
Once again the affirmative rebuts a point incorrectly. Scientists themselves state that they only understand 4% of the universe. Their life is devoted to discovering the other 96%. The affirmative assumed that my main opinion via this point was that science and religion are mutually exclusive. This is incorrect as I was simply trying to display the differences between the will to learn of scientists and religious followers.

The affirmative stated that scientists can be religious and believe in God. This is exactly my point. Have you ever seen a religious person converted to evolution via research into that field of science? No. This is reiterated by the affirmative's statement of- "I do not need an open mind if I already have the truth". If the affirmative is so certain that God exists, a debate such as this against him would seem pointless.

Whilst not my main point, the idea that science and religion are mutually exclusive is valid and true. Religion is not science. This is because intelligent design implies an intelligent designer, not as science but as evidence to reinforce existential beliefs.

3. THE MORTAL ENEMY OF FAITH IS KNOWLEDGE
The affirmative took this point way too personally. My point was simply stating that if you believe in something (whether it be the weather tomorrow, the next lottery number or the existence of God) you will always be adverse to knowledge against your opinions. The aim of this point was the further state how religion can blind you with it's faith and make you unable to see knowledge provided against the existence of God. Once again, this explains the denial put forward by the affirmative during the course of this debate.

4. THE ROOTS OF RELIGION CAN EASILY BE CHALLENGED
Although I understand many of the points put forward by the affirmative. I do not understand their views against this point. If Christians believe that God exists, they must believe that the root of religion is with God himself. However, evidence of the Bible begin adjusted and lengthened by unreliable sources is pinpointed throughout all of history. This shows that the roots of religion do not lie with God and if God is not connected to religion in this way it makes him a figment of Christian imagination.

5. RELIGION HAS BEEN USED TO CONTROL THE MASSES
The affirmative has called me a stupid, stereotypical atheist for stating this point. I am tiring of saying that he took my point into offense via a misunderstanding. The true meaning of this point and it's proof for the non-existence of God lies within the fact that religion can be used a tool to control others. Imagine if another tool was created that sent entire populations to the same spot every Sunday morning. Who would create this tool? How much power would it give them? Did someone create the image of God simply to use it as a tool? Does this prove that God does not exist?

6. THE BIBLE MAY BE FALSIFIED
There is no doubt that opportunities for the Christian religion to have been adjusted and lengthened to benefit individuals have risen over the course of history. Whilst we may never know if these opportunities were ever taken up, it seems highly likely with some the examples I gave in my point last round.

"As an atheist, don't presume to tell Christians which part of their belief is accurate or not. Just stick to refuting the dumb and errant arguments, and intelligent Christians will provide meaningful ones that can further our knowledge on the topic of God and religion."

These were the harsh words of the affirmative in rebuttal to my case. "Is this a 'civil' way to debate my friend?"

7. RELIGION IS OFTEN USED TO EXPLAIN THE UNEXPLAINABLE
The opposition appears to have yet again denied the validity of my point and so I will now provide a second example of revealing the actual validity within this point. The Ancient Egyptians once believed that the sun was the god Ra who rode across the sky in a chariot. In the 21st century, we know that the sun is actually a celestial body that moves across the sky due to our orbit. The Ancient Egyptians did not know this fact and thus relied on religion to explain this occurrence.

My point here is that the idea of God may simply be a way of explaining the processes of the beginning of our universe which science is yet to explain. Yes, the affirmative may see a possibility for a God to create our world but it seems far more likely, due to previous scientific findings, that it is some astronomical factor we have yet to consider.

8. GOD IS NOT OMNISCIENT NOR OMNIPOTENT
The affirmative regarded this as my only semi-legitimate point. He then went on to state that God can do what ever he wants because: 'he's God', 'God has a plan in which people can be saved' and 'Humans form the opinion that God is evil'. The affirmative likes to play the game of demanding evidence for my points. It is now the negative's turn to ask the affirmative- "Where is your evidence for these statements?"

The affirmative continued to discuss why we should not condemn God for his own actions however this seems irrelevant towards my main point that if God loves us all so much- why does he not use his omniscient and omnipotent powers to save us from all dying? Is it because he can't? Is it because he does not even exist?

CONCLUSION
In the comments section of this debate the affirmative assured me: "I will be civil. No worries."

Throughout the course of this debate, the affirmative seems to lose the idea of being civil and reverts to taking all comments made by myself to be personal. As the affirmative is a Christian himself, he has further proven much of the points I have raised in this debate. The mortal enemy of faith is knowledge and the affirmative seems so intent on defending his diety that a debate such as this appears pointless. The affirmative seems not willing to even consider the alternative to his case where God may not exist.

The only arguments solely raised by the affirmative are that three premises of morality define the existence of God. As the negative, I believe that I have firmly rebutted this point and have raised a myriad of examples as to why God does not exist. The affirmative has tried to rebut these arguments with simple denial but this has only strengthened the validity of my case that proves that God does not exist.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Vapeo 7 months ago
Vapeo
I urge all voters to strongly analyze all the rounds, I will not attempt a last chance explanation.
Posted by Vapeo 7 months ago
Vapeo
Actually, I am 15, and input my data wrong!

It was a great debate I think.

Have fun Everyone!
Posted by finn.b14 7 months ago
finn.b14
That was an intense debate. Just realised that Vapeo is 25 and I'm only 15. Yikes! Vote well everyone!
Posted by Vapeo 7 months ago
Vapeo
exactly 10,000 characters
Posted by Vapeo 7 months ago
Vapeo
In other words, if it is the case that my premises are true, God must exist.

If you agree with all my premises, then logically you should agree with the conclusion.

I am not trying to prove that morality exists. I am saying, IF it does, God does also.
Posted by Vapeo 7 months ago
Vapeo
I understand what you are saying, but I am technically not question begging, since I listed my opinions as merely premises, not undisputable facts.

Thanks for your input Joaquin!

Side note, do you believe in morality?
Posted by JoaquinBarzi 7 months ago
JoaquinBarzi
I believe there is a flaw in your logic, Vapeo, that could be corrected without dismissing the rest of your argument.

When you say that evil exists, you are making a moral judgment. To do so, you are taking for granted morality, aka taking as an axiom that morality exists. Then you proceed to try to prove that morality exists because we observe morally wrong/ evil acts in the world. But that way you are assuming the thing you are trying to prove, morality, right from the beggining. Its a circular reasoning.

The way i see it, you can either make morality an axiom, which would make your argument meaningless, or provide a valid reason for morality.
Or maybe i am missing something.

Anyway, i hope i was clear enough.
Best of lucks. JBL
Posted by NathanDuclos 7 months ago
NathanDuclos
I swear this is the same person arguing with himself. . .
Posted by ortolard 7 months ago
ortolard
I appreciate both of your being civil, but as of writing there's only 3 days left for Vapeo's response...
Posted by Vapeo 7 months ago
Vapeo
You can ask me any questions if you want here. I will be civil, no worries! :)
No votes have been placed for this debate.