All Big Issues
The Instigator
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

# God exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
 Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point Started: 11/8/2016 Category: Religion Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 1,116 times Debate No: 96820
Debate Rounds (4)

 Con Resolution - god existsDefinitions:God - omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, eternal, conscious being that actively intervenes into our world, listens to our prayers, judges us after we die. Basically it's god of the Bible or Quran. God under discussion is not an idea, not a word, not a concept. God doesn't equal consciousness, god doesn't equal conscience, god doesn't equal energy etc. I hope it's clear now what kind of god I want to discuss.Burden of Proof:Burden is on my opponent to prove that above mentioned god exists, he or she may use whatever kind of evidence, argument or proof he or she likes.I will be showing that arguments presented are flawed in some way or another therefore insufficient to arrive at a conclusion that existence of the god is a fact, plus I'll present my own arguments for the absence of god which my opponent should rebut.I know that there are people completely convinced that the existence of god is a matter of fact so I think this BoP is fair.Rules:1. My opponent should start his or her argument in the first round.2. My opponent is not allowed to make arguments or rebuttals in his or her last round so we can have equal number of rounds to argue. He or she should write "thank you for debate" or like.3. No semantics4. If my opponent accepts debate it follows he accepts all rules, definitions, and BoP mentioned earlier.Good luck and have fun! Report this Argument Pro Hi, I'll take your challenge and accept your debate. I'll be arguing that god does exist, the christian god to be more exact. So without further ado I will start my arguments. Arguments: 1. The Argument for God Proof for god is quite simple and can be proven in a simple three step argument as shown below. Premise 1: Something exists Premise 2: Nothing cannot create something Conclusion: Something must have always existed As shown above, things exist, nothing can't create something (According to the First Law of Thermodynamics), so something must have created that something. 2. The Mathematical Proof of God The Euler Formula, created by the Swiss mathematician and physicist Leonhard Euler effectively proves god must be real. Here is the formula: \frac{a+b^n}{n}=x Obviously very few people would be able to understand this equation just by looking at it, so I will explain it. This equation combines some of the most important numbers in mathematics, while at the same time still holding to be true. This technically is mathematically impossible, due to the oddites it creates, and the only explanation is God numerated the constants so we can become aware that he exists. Here is a article that solves the formula and explains it much more deeply then I do (they already partially solve the Euler formula when explaining it.) Article: http://www.artmusicdance.com... 3. The Ontological Proof of God Kurt Godel, a Austrian mathematician and philosopher, has successfully created proof of god. This proof has been proven to be true with modern day technology. Here is the Proof: Godel"s Ontological Proof of the Existence of God: "Ax1 P(=656;6;) U96; =656; P(6;) A property is either positive or its negation (its complement) is positive. Ax2 P(6;) =657; 33;׊x[6;(x) U94; 8;(x)] U94; P(8;) Any property strictly implied by a positive property is positive. D1 G( ) x U96; ׊6;[ ( P 6;) U94; 6;( )] x x is God-like if and only if x "incorporates" all positive properties. Ax3 P(G) The property of being God-like is positive. Ax4 P(6;) U94; 33;P(6;) Positive properties are necessarily positive properties. D2 6; Ess x U96; 6;(x) =657; ׊8;[8;(x) U94; 33;׊y(6;(y) U94; 8;(y)] 6; is an essence of x if and only if 6; is a property of x and every property 8; that x has is strictly implied by 6;. D3 E(x) U96; ׊6;[6; Ess x U94; 33;׌y 6;(y)] x necessarily exi t s s if and l on y if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified. Ax5 P(E) Necessary existence is positive." (Godel) It is explained quite well in the proof, however i will add a link talking about how modern day technology proves it. Link: http://www.spiegel.de... 4. The Watchmaker Argument The watchmaker argument is an argument that gives logical proof of god's existence. Here is the explanation of it in my own words: Let's say you're walking down the street and you find a watch. You reach down and pick it up. As you're picking it up what do you think? 1. This watch was made by a watchmaker/company 2. This watch is the result of a coincidental and complex form of natural atoms and elements, and is naturally made. I'm guessing that 99.99% of people would pick the first option. If you do pick the first option, and you are an atheist, why do you believe that? The Universe is much, much more complicated then a watch, and honestly is probably more likely to be created by a maker (such as God) then not. 5. The Probable Argument for God Blaise Pascal, a French mathematician, physicist, and philosopher has come up with a probability argument that supports god. The argument is as shown: "1.God is, or He is not. 2.A Game is being played where heads or tails will turn up. 3.According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions. 4.You must wager. (It's not optional.) 5.Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing." (Pascal). Essentially this argument states there is a 50/50 percent chance god is real or not. If you are a christian and you are right you get eternal joy, if you are wrong nothing happens. If you are an atheist and you are right nothing happens, however if you are wrong you get eternal suffering. Here's a Visual: http://www.overcomingbias.com... According to this wager why not be a christian and face no risks at all? That's all the arguments I will post right now. I encourage you to look at some of my sources, as they also explain a lot of what i wrote about. For now I sign off and wish my opponent the best of luck. Sources: 1. http://www.spiegel.de... 2. http://www.artmusicdance.com... 3. http://notashamedofthegospel.com... 4. The works of Blaise Pascal, Kurt Godel, and Leonhard EulerReport this Argument Con Thank you for accepting my challenge!=Rebuttals=R1) Something existsPro didn't mind to finish his argument with relevant conclusion. His argument is simply off the point or at best non sequitur. He said that nothing cannot create something. I can agree that absolute nothing that is devoid of any content or potentiality will remain in this state forever and since there is something it means that there was always something in one form of another. But what it has to do with god?R2) The mathematical proof for godMy opponents says that (a+b^n)/n=x somehow proves god. I don't see how it logically follows. I think that by this standard 2+2=4 is sound proof too.Then he claims that "This equation combines some of the most important numbers in mathematics, while at the same time still holding to be true." I don't see any important number here (a? b? n?...?), nor I see how this equation in this general form is either false or true. If a=1, b=1, n=1, and x=1 our formula takes form of 2=1, therefore being false. He claims that alleged formula "technically is mathematically impossible". I don't see anything extraordinary or impossible in equation written by Pro. It's most ordinary equation you can get in math. He says "the only explanation is God numerated the constants so we can become aware that he exists." I don't see how this line logically follows. Existence of constants and their values may be very well explained by simply referring to axioms on which we based field of mathematics in which they appear plus number base we use.Then he refers to an article which turns out to have nothing to do with formula he presents. The article tries to find patterns in decimal expansions of number Pi or square root of 2 and that obviously can't lead us to god. All it takes to destroy every "pattern" we found is to simply switch to different number base. Let alone that it is not argument Pro tries to make so I didn't even have to respond to it.Going back to original formula, it's very funny but it looks like Pro fell victim of urban legend. Euler was supposed to give the same formula as an answer to Denis Diderot's when he asked him for mathematical proof for god. [1]R3) Gödel's ontological argumentOnce again my opponent fail to finish his arguments with relevant conclusion. He ends up on axiom which states that necessary existence is positive. Does Pro expects me to finish off his argument and then rebut it? I hope it's not the case. If my opponent wants to use formalized mathematical proof he ought to rise to the challenge and make his proof respecting mathematical rules and notations and what's most important he should finish his argument with necessary conclusion. The article he linked to does not contains this proof either. R4) Watchmaker argumentMy opponents begs the question here. He basically says that because we recognize watch to be creation, thus we expect it to have creator, we should act similarly with respect to universe, namely since we recognize universe to be creation it's logical to postulate a creator. I want to remind that whether universe is someone's creation is a very topic of this debate. My opponent should prove in one way or another that universe indeed is creation. As for now he merely asserts it.He says that because universe is much more complex than watch, it must follows that universe has a creator. May opponent seems to believe that complexity is what determines whether something came into being naturally or as a result of design. That's completely wrong. We recognize design not be complexity but rather by asking ourselves whether thing that we observe is usually associated with intelligence or not. We associate watches with intelligence, hence when we find one we know there must have been creator. When we see simple wooden furniture we also recognize it as creation even though it's nothing complex. Other life forms are infinitely more complex than watches, yet we have perfect naturalistic explanation for how they could come into being without intelligent designer. It proves that level of complexity can't be use as indicator of design. R5) Pascal's WagerI'm surprised Pro uses word "argument" here. It's not. We're not debating here, whether one would be better of believing or disbelieving in god. We're debating whether god actually exists. Pascal's wager tells us nothing on this topic.But since Pro brought it up let me comment on that.Pascal's wager is false dichotomy. It assumes that only two cases are possible:A) Only OUR god exists and he sends atheists to hellB) There is no god, no afterlife, no soul, etc.What about other options? What if Allah is true god? What if there is heaven but no god at all? What if there is god who awards people who don't believe in him? Pascal's Wager is probably the worst yet still well known argument for god, that was ever created. It proves that even great minds can sometimes fail in their train of thought.=Arguments against god=A1) Problem of informationIf omnibenevolent, omnipotent god who cares about us existed I'd expect there to be clear instructions on how to live. I'd expect one perfect , always up-to-date book or other guide devoid of contradictions, immune to misinterpretation (after all god is omnipotent), which would prove beyond any shadow of doubt that god exists. For example why Bible does not contain any physical constant? Why it doesn't contain any scientific knowledge otherwise unavailable to humans back then? Such information would strongly support the idea of Bible being god-inspired book and therefore make it much easier and natural to believe in christian god.What we have instead is exactly what we would expect if religions were man made - many books, which are riddled with contradictions and/or scientific nonsense, many different stories, incompatible with each other, lack of any revealed truth in neither of those books, etc.A2) Problem of evil and gratuitous suffer-humansMy opponent believes that omnipotent and omnibenevolent (though he didn't argue for this property yet) god exists. How can he then account for all suffering in the world? How does he account for small children dying every minute out of easily avoidable causes like dehydration? God either can't or doesn't want to intervene. So he is either impotent or indifferent. Pro may argue that humans have free will and god respects it, therefore evil and suffering exists. That's not too good explanation. It's common knowledge that on multiple occasions god was intervening in course of events, thus violating humans' free will. Jesus is known for healing and resurrecting other people. Why we don't observe it anymore on any discernible scale?Pro also have to believe that at some point during human evolution, there was a point in which soulless parents gave birth to kid possessing soul. It means, that at some point in the past, there were two generations, one soulless, therefore condemned to annihilation, and second soulful, therefore redeemed by Christ. It means that even though member of that older generation were no less human than their offspring (every human ever born had human parents) they didn't even have a chance to be redeemed. To me it decisively disproves christian god. -animalsWhat about animals? We know that animals are capable of suffering [2][3]. Yet they don't have a souls, therefore their suffering will be never gratified. Existence of gratuitous evil and omnibenevolent, omnipotent god are mutually exclusive, therefore omnibenevolent god can't exist.=Conclusions=Not a single argument presented by Pro is soundA1 - non sequiturA2 - non sequitur, Pro himself seems to not know what he is really driving atA3 - clearly incomplete argumentA4 - question beggingA5 - not argument at all by any conceivable standardsHowever we have good arguments against god. Vote Con! =Sources=[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...Report this Argument Pro =Rebuttals to your Rebuttals=1. Something existsMy Apologies, I should have been more in-depth. The purpose of this argument, was the universe had to have had a start, and before that there would have been nothing. Because nothing cannot create something, such as matter, God must have made that matter to form the universe2. The Mathematical Proof of GodI have few characters remaining so I will skip this for now.3. Godel's ontological argumentThe article I posted was simply to prove that Godel's proof is correct which it does. It doesn't show the proof because i didn't need post it, because I put it on the argument. If you do need to see the proof it is on this PDF at page 8. PDF: http://wwwmath.uni-muenster.de...My opponent also refers to the proof as mine. This is simply untrue and all credit goes to Kurt GodelAlso my opponent also states ". If my opponent wants to use formalized mathematical proof he ought to rise to the challenge and make his proof respecting mathematical rules and notations" That is untrue as it does. Now looking back at it I think DDO might have butchered it (I Copied and pasted). The Proof is here on page 8: http://wwwmath.uni-muenster.de...As for my conclusion, it explains all you need to know in the argument itself. However I will add a conclusion here if my opponent demands it. Conclusion for #3 Argument: Godel's Proof is above. If you follow the Proof closely you can tell the proof does make sense if you follow it it also has been proven as shown in this quote "Using an ordinary MacBook computer, they have shown that Godel's proof was correct -- at least on a mathematical level -- by way of higher modal logic. Their initial submission on the arXiv.org research article server is called "Formalization, Mechanization and Automation of Godel's Proof of God's Existence." This qoute shows that the proof has been successfully proven, therefore proving that god exists, due to that being the result of the proof.Source: http://www.spiegel.de...4. Watchmaker ArgumentI agree with you that complexity doesn't determine the creator, however it is usually a factor and is why i posted it. However my opponents argument against this is "we have perfect naturalistic explanation for how they could come into being without intelligent designer" this is basically what we are debating about, and he provides no explanation about what he is talking about.5.Pascal's WagerI know this really isn't proof, however just a logical argument on why to believe in god.=Rebuttals for your Arguments=1. Problem of informationFirst off the bible does contain scientific evidence not know back then. It displays the creation of the planets with startling accuracy, as shown here:"data from these two telescopes is revealing that planets like the Earth are formed in the exact same fashion as described at Genesis 1:2, 3. According to NASA, planets form inside a proto-planetary disc of dust and debris, starting out in a formless and chaotic state in total darkness, as describe in Genesis verse 2. "Now the earth proved to be formless and waste, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep."NASA's scientists have discovered that as the planets mature inside their dusty cocoon they suck up all the dust between them and the sun so that the planets slowly emerge from darkness into the light as described in Genesis verse 3. "Let light come to be." Then there came to be light."See more here: http://www.christiannewswire.com...As for instructions on how to live, the Ten Commandments were made for that exact reason (If you don't know what that is look it up).As for the contradictions, you claim it should be clear to misinterpretation because of omnipotence? God is omnipotent, not the bible, God didn't write the bible therefore it wouldn't be perfect. People wrote the bible, they are prone to mistakes and therefore could mess up the bible. Also mind you, most of the bible was written at a different time, in a different place, therefore probably resulting in most of your misinterpretations.2. Problem of evil and gratuitous sufferFirst off, exist means have objective reality or being. Tell me does coldness exist? No. Coldness is the absence of heat. Does darkness exist? No. Darkness is the absence of light. My opponent claims "therefore evil and suffering exists". He is wrong in the sense of evil existing. Evil is the absence of one thing, God. God doesn't make evil, evil is what happens when a man doesn't have God's love present in his heart. Jesus was an example for us, he helped and healed us. After that we tortured, crucified, and killed him. However when he raised from the dead, he forgave all of us and took our sins away. God wants us to follow Jesus's example and help people just like him, when we don't do this evil and suffering is the result. If everyone followed and acted like Jesus, there would be no suffering or evil. God is giving us a chance to redeem ourselves, his forces are present, however many people don't accept them. =Arguments=1. Scientific Evidence in the Bible I said this in the rebuttals, however I will post it again here. The bible has told of the formation of planets with startling accuracy, long before telescopes, this quote shows it if you don't believe me:"data from these two telescopes is revealing that planets like the Earth are formed in the exact same fashion as described at Genesis 1:2, 3. According to NASA, planets form inside a proto-planetary disc of dust and debris, starting out in a formless and chaotic state in total darkness, as describe in Genesis verse 2. "Now the earth proved to be formless and waste, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep."NASA's scientists have discovered that as the planets mature inside their dusty cocoon they suck up all the dust between them and the sun so that the planets slowly emerge from darkness into the light as described in Genesis verse 3. "Let light come to be." Then there came to be light."Source: http://www.christiannewswire.com...As shown above the formation of the planets matches with the The Book of Genesis's description of how earth was formed. How is this possible? It must be that God told of the formation of the plants to early humans.2. JesusHopefully everybody knows the story of Jesus. How he came and helped us, yet we tortured, crucified, and killed him. After this he rose from the grave and ascended into heaven, with 500 witnesses seeing it, not counting women (Women were thought of as unreliable back in the day, so they didn't count them as witnesses). So tell me how could Jesus rise from the dead and ascend to heaven if there is no god? It doesn't add up.=Conclusion=Once again I end here. I have shown proof of god in my arguments, and showed how my opponents arguments are false. I wish luck to my opponent, and i sign off.Vote Pro! Sources:1. http://www.christiannewswire.com...2. http://www.spiegel.de...3. http://joshuamarshman.theworldrace.org...4. The works of Blaise Pascal, Kurt Godel, and Leonhard EulerReport this Argument Con =Rebuttals=R1) Something existsIn his first round, my opponent made an argument that something always existed. This time he says that the universe had to have a start and before that there was nothing, and therefore god was there and made universe from nothing. I think it goes without saying that nothing here logically follows. If nothing existed before universe it follows that god didn't exist either. But my opponent believes that something always existed, why then he needs god to create anything?R2) The Mathematical proofOk, until then my objections stand.R3) Gödel's ontological argumentI hope it's clear to everyone that what my opponent does here is unacceptable by any means.Instead of making an argument he gives us a link to 16 page pdf document. What does he expect me to do? Paste a link to other 16 page pdf with my rebuttal? He also thinks that entire Gödel's proof takes only one page of that document, it's not true, argument starts at page 8 and finish on page 11. Four pages. Three of which my opponent missed in previous round. He says that article he refers to prove that Gödel is correct therefore god exists. That's nonsense, let me quote an important passage that about sums it up:"Now Benzmüller hopes that using such a headline-friendly example can help draw attention to the method. "I didn't know it would create such a huge public interest but (Gödel's ontological proof) was definitely a better example than something inaccessible in mathematics or artificial intelligence," the scientist added."As we can see Gödel's proof was simply a good example to use to draw attention of other people. The intention of scientific paper was to prove that computers are capable of proving mathematical theorems using unconventional methods.Because Pro didn't even mind to write that argument, I'm not obliged to respond to it. However let me comment on one thing.Pro says that because proof is correct, god must exist. The sheer fact proof is formally valid doesn't mean it's anything worth notice. Argument has to be sound in order to draw any actual conclusions, let me give an exampleP1 god doesn't exist or 2+2=5P2 2+2=/=5Conclusion: God doesn't existIt's correct, or more precisely, valid mathematical proof. If we accept premises we can't arrive at other conclusion without contradiction. Yet it's not sound, there is no reason to accept first premise.It's up to my opponent to estimate amount of space needed for an argument. If he knew that Gödel's proof is too long to use it, he should give it up and use other arguments, or split it into two rounds. Presenting entire argument in a form of long PDF document is not the way debate system works otherwise we would end up posting longer and longer articles instead of arguments. Articles should serve as sources, not as independent arguments.R4) Watchmaker"I agree with you that complexity doesn't determine the creator, however it is usually a factor and is why i posted it."No it's not. A match is infinitely less complex than elephant yet we recognize it as something designed. Complexity isn't factor at all.Then my opponents quotes me, he says that I don't provide any explanation for my claim that we have naturalistic explanation for how living organisms could come into being without designer. I think the answer is obvious - evolution. The theory of evolution explains very well, how very complex forms of life could come into existence without anyone's intervention. I hope Pro accepts this theory. Given that complexity was the only reason Pro gave to think that universe is creation, and since I proved that complexity has nothing to do with recognizing design I think it's safe to say this argument doesn't hold water.R5) Pascal's Wager Pro concedes it's not an argument.R6) JesusMy opponent claims that god exists because Jesus rose from the dead. What proof does he have to support it? Supposedly 500 witnesses saw it. How he knows it? From the Bible. How does he know Bible is reliable source? I don't know, I hope it's not because "it's revealed word of god" Below I present why there is no reason to believe Bible was revealed by any god.Also it's worth notice that resurrections were quite common back then (2 Kings 13:21) so even if Jesus resurrected there is no reason to take it as an evidence of his divine origin.=Defending my own arguments=A1) Problem of informationLet's assume for a moment that what Pro said is right, and Bible got this one thing right. What does it prove? It proves that if you make enough claims, and Bible does many, you're bound to get right at least some stuff.According to Genesis universe, including all galaxies, stars, planets was created in six days. We know that stars couldn't be created long after big bang occurred. Pro may try to explain that days mentioned in Genesis aren't real 24 hour days. If he believes that one day=x amount of time, he has to show evidence to support this claim. Otherwise he has to claim that universe, and planets were indeed created in six days, it's impossible given our current scientific knowledge (first hydrogen atoms were created long after BB [1]), or he can claim that Book of genesis can't be taken literally, therefore he admits that his previous claim is just cherry picking. There are more anti scientific claims in the Bible especially regarding earth:A. Flat Earth - Job 38:13; Isaiah 11:12; Rev. 7:1B. Stationary Earth Eccles. 1:5; Psalms 93:1, 96:10, 104:5; Joshua 10:12; 1 Chron. 16:30C. Earth rests on pillars - 1 Sam. 2:8; Job 9:6, 38:4What's more important, according to verse 2 of Genesis, which is the one Pro refers to, there was some surface of water in very early history of the earth. We know it's impossible due to very high temperatures on earth back then. [2]Pro says that even though god is omnipotent it does not necessarily means Bible should be inerrant. I beg to differ. If I was omnipotent and omniscient god I would certainly find a way to protect my guide from being misunderstood. Assuming of course that I would care. Pro also claims that ten commandments is enough for human to know how to live. Again it's not true. The problem is my opponent forgets about other commandments god gave to Moses and about which we know they are ludicrous and out-dated. Let me give you few example:A. It's ok to beat your slaves as hard as you wish as long as he survives a day or two Exodus 21:20-21B. Females are worth less than males Leviticus 27:1-7C. Homosexuals should be put to death Leviticus 20:13D. It's ok to stone unruly children Deuteronomy 21:18-21E. Rape is ok, as long as you pay small fee Deuteronomy 22:28-29When it comes to contradictions, let me put one:Genesis 1:25-6 says that God created the beasts then man. Genesis 2:18-19 says God created Adam and then the beasts. I proved that alleged scientific knowledge in the Bible is just evidence of cherry-picking. I also showed that its moral teachings are highly disputable to say the least. Plus there are obvious contradictions. I think that's more than enough to say there is not a single thing about Bible which suggests it's revealed word of god. Therefore my argument standsAlso it looks like we deal with New World Translation here, therefore I used it as my source too. [3]A2) Problem of evil and gratuitous suffer1. AnimalsDropped. Apparently all loving god doesn't care about animal suffer.2. HumansMy opponents gives vague response here. "If everyone followed and acted like Jesus, there would be no suffering or evil. " So according to Pro poor African children dying each day are apparently guilty of not accepting Jesus in their hearts. What about natural disasters? Are tsunamis and earthquakes going to stop when everybody accepts Jesus? Why all loving god would design such a hostile place? And what about first humans who didn't have a soul? Isn't soul necessary to be redeemed? I think my argument still stands.Vote Con!=Sources=[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...Report this Argument Pro =Defending my Arguments=1. Something ExistsMy opponent claims the following..." If nothing existed before universe it follows that god didn't exist either."Lucky when I accepted this debate you claimed that the god I had to prove had to have the power of omnipotence. Omnipotence, the power to do anything, literally means that god can do anything. This even means god could've created himself.I also meant in that situation that god was the only thing that had existed and he then commenced to create the universe. 3. Gödel's ontological argumentDespite me posting it on a pdf document the argument, it still stands. Get over it.I am also afraid your other rebuttal on this is wrong. The article states the proof was logically proven, however it also shows that computers can help advance science. If you don't believe me look at these quotes" Using an ordinary MacBook computer, they have shown that Gödel's proof was correct" (Knight)" Two scientists have formalized a theorem regarding the existence of God penned by mathematician Kurt Gödel. But the God angle is somewhat of a red herring -- the real step forward is the example it sets of how computers can make scientific progress simpler" (Knight)Source: http://www.spiegel.de...As you can see, they did solve Gödels proof, proving god is real. However they also use this to show how computers can make scientific progress simpler. The real problem is my opponent only looked at one part of the story.4. Watchmaker ArgumentMy opponent states..."I think the answer is obvious - evolution."I figured you meant evolution, however you ask me to elaborate on every thing so I figured I would do the same.I also do accept the evolution theory and I believe god used it as a tool to form modern life. 7. JesusFirst off, 500 witness saw the ascension, not the resurrection (as you state). I will then argue over the resurrection because of your claim of this. Next, I will use the the Gospel of Luke in my argument. before we start discussing this I want to show you a quote concerning Luke himself..."Luke is an accurate, credible historian. He has been proven over and over again by scholars to be an extraordinary historian. Luke 1:1-4 tells us how he went about his gathering evidence and evaluating it." Source: http://www.abideinchrist.com...Luke, as you can see is a credible historian, and the Gospel of Luke discusses the birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. Here is Luke 1:1-4 (The section the quote discusses) that shows us he has carefully investigated when writing his gospel..."Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught" (Luke 1:1-4)As we can see Luke carefully investigated and verified everything he wrote, he investigated when writing his story about Jesus Christ, making it much more credible. Yes his writings were in the bible, however the bible is a collection of 66 books/written works, made by 40 different writers, not just one big story. It is like a magazine, which is a collection of articles and illustrations, If you believe one article is wrong, does that disprove the rest of the articles? Not at all. Also when looking for information about Jesus, take this quote in mind..."Jesus lived over 2000 years ago. He is an ANCIENT figure from history, and there are some things that we need to remember about historical figures and events from this period of time:1. There are amazingly few manuscripts of ANY text written during Jesus" time2. Historians of this period wrote amazingly little about religious figures anyway3. Jesus was active for an amazingly short period of time (just three years)4. Jesus ministered in an amazingly remote corner of the Roman Empire" Source: https://www.biblegateway.com...Despite these drawbacks, I have luckily found evidence outside of the bible, from the historian Phlegon.""Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails." (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 59)This quote shows Jesus have resurrected from the dead. Here is a couple of other quotes if you are interested.https://www.biblegateway.com...My Opponent also states..."Also it's worth notice that resurrections were quite common back then (2 Kings 13:21)"I'm afraid one resurrection in between the creation of the earth and 30-36 AD doesn't exactly make it common. These were centuries apart and not even in the same testaments. He also revived when he touched the bones of Elisha, a very faithful servant of the lord, the lord then did bring the man to come back to life. Because these resurrections weren't common, this argument holds no water.=Rebuttals=1. Problem of informationFirst off, I don't believe the universe was created in 6 days. How do we tell time? By the Sun. During the days of creation, the sun was not created until day 4. because of this you could not tell time, so a day could've been however long god wanted it to be. Also god was the only one around then to measure time. So tell me how long is god's day? It is most likely different then our days.If talking about the creation of the universe is guessing, then it's pretty ironic it is one of the first things mentioned in the bible.As for the contradictions...Anti Scientific Claims - Most of your verses are Metaphorical, also just talking about holding earth, also in the others the four corners of the earth means the edges of the middle east and surrounding nations, also know the bible was written by humans not god.About your water argument, go and look at the argument about days above, god's days could be a very long time resulting in the earth to cool. Okay once again god didn't write the bible, or have anything to do with the creation of it. Also know some of the time men put in what they believed instead of what they knew about god, and his ideals. This also results in some of your contradictions. God didn't whisper into the authors ears what to write.Also none of the "other commandments" were on the tablet god gave to Moses, not making them apart of the commandmentsIf I answered all of you bible contradictions, I would run out of characters, but once again know god didn't write the bible, humans did, and often times laws of the land were written on it.2.Problem of evilAnimal suffer..."When humans fell from grace in the Garden of Eden, all of creation fell from grace with them. In other words, all of the created universe suffers from Man’s sin." Source: http://www.aggiecatholicblog.org...Essentially we screwed up big time. We were give one rule and disobeyed it. Everyone suffers. And like a father punishes a son, god must punish us.As with human suffering...You are now mixing up my words. Rich people who don't share with the poor, causes suffering, and for them to suffer, starve, and die. Also whose to say Adam and Eve don't have a soul?I don't think your arguments still stand. I end by rebuttals here, and sign off for this round.Vote Pro!Sources1. http://www.spiegel.de...2. http://www.abideinchrist.com...3. http://www.aggiecatholicblog.org...4. The Bible5. The works of the historian Phlegon.6. https://www.biblegateway.com...Report this Argument Con I'd like to thank my opponent for entertaining experience!=Rebuttals=R1. SomethingIt's really hard to say what Pro is arguing here. He says that even if there was absolute nothing, it still wouldn't prevent god from "creating himself". It's logical contradiction. Nothing in this case means absence of anything including potentiality or ability to create anything, even god. He then argue that he didn't really mean nothing, but nothing plus god. He says that "before" universe only god existed. How he knows it? I don't know. It's just wild assertion unsupported by any evidence. I can claim that multidimensional aliens were there. My claim has as much substance as the one of Pro.R2. Gödel's argumentMy opponent openly admits that he indeed treats a link to long pdf as independent argument. It's patently absurd. He forgot that he is the one debating here, not authors of this pdf. Because no arguments was presented in any round, at best we just saw few axioms and definitions, I'm not obliged by any standard of debate to respond to it. However I'll do it anyway.As you remember in my previous round I was arguing that it's not enough for argument to be formally correct if you want to draw any real conclusions regarding actual world. It also has to be sound. In his response to that my opponent quotes passage which states that... Gödel's proof is correct. How is it rebuttal to what I wrote? No one doubts Gödel's proof is formally valid, after all we're talking about great mathematician. My opponent basically conflates words "valid" or "correct" with "sound". Again, look at my proof:P1. God doesn't exist or 2+2=5P2. 2+2=/=5C. God doesn't existIt's called disjunctive syllogism [1] and it's valid argument too. It proves without ambiguity that god doesn't exist. Pro basically claims that it's the only condition we need in order to draw a conclusion regarding actual word. Because we have two equally valid and correct proofs, one against, and on for the existence of god, Pro must claim that god both totally exists, and doesn't exists at all at the same time. It's logical contradiction and it clearly indicates that Pro's reasoning doesn't fly here.R3. WatchmakerOnce again my opponent make assertion instead of argument. He claims that god used evolution to form modern life. Fine, I claim we live in matrix and aliens just uploaded animal NPCs. Both our claims are equally baseless.R4. JesusMy opponents argue that Luke is so reliable that we should trust his every word. That's nonsense. Luke was not a first hand witness, his gospel was written decades (probably 50 years[2][3]) after Jesus' death. It alone makes him hardly reliable on this topic. His gospel also contains supernatural events (which is not a big surprise) that violate currently known laws of physics therefore rendering him even less reliable. Under no circumstances we prefer historical testimony over contemporary known laws of physics. We never say "look, science tells us that Earth is a spherical, but according to this testimony its flat, therefore we should rethink our physics". Why should we use special pleading with respect to Luke's Gospel? We know that dead people don't come back to life. Human brain starts dying 3 minutes out of oxygen deprivation [4] and after 3 days there is not much left to revive.Pro also uses work of historian Phlegon. Unfortunately, Phlegon was born long after Jesus death[5], his chronicles were probably written over 100 years after Jesus. So again it's not reliable "source".As we can see the case for resurrection is rather poor.To top it all, aliens are more plausible explanation for resurrection. What If Jesus was a highly advanced cyborg designed to fool us into believing he is a god? Existence of aliens is compatible with laws of physics plus we know advanced organisms like to make fun of others (humans and funny cat videos etc). =Defending my arguments=A1. Problem of informationAs you remember I was arguing that if god existed we should expect there to be a one very clear, neat and perfect guidebook which would lead us throughout our lives. I think it's very reasonable prediction. After all god is caring, plus he judges us after we die and whether we believe in him or not is considered to be an important factor during this judgment. I claimed that nothing that we know indicates such state of affairs, there are many books, they are incompatible with each other, most of them contain contradictions, anti scientific claims, and dubious moral guidelines. Also religions varies very much depending on cultural and geographical differences. That's precisely what we would expect if religions were man made. My opponent didn't refute any of these statements, namely he didn't explain dubious moral teachings in the bible, nor it's contradictions, nor it's anti scientific claims.He basically admits that indeed there is nothing about Bible to suggest that its authors were divinely inspired. He says that god's day are not our days yet he does not provide any specific exchange rate. He says that many verses are metaphorical, I agree that proves my point, why would god prefer to use metaphors, linguistic technique so susceptible to misinterpretation, instead of clear and easily understandable language? Isn't it true that god wants to establish relation with his creation? Isn't it true that god wants us to follow his commandments? Isn't it true that god wants us to live in accordance to Bible? If so, why he did literally everything to make us doubt in his guidebook? God which doesn't provide any trustworthy tips on how to live, yet judge us accordingly after we die is an evil and unjust god. Not what Pro argues for.God which doesn't provide any tips or rules and doesn't judge us is an indifferent non intervening. Deistic god. Again not the kind of god we're discussing here.A2. Evil and gratuitous sufferMy opponent say that because Adam and Eve screwed the things up the entire universe has to suffer. Wow, just wow. What kind of justice is this? I don't know. Pro probably forgot that the key point of my argument is the existence of gratuitous suffer. Animals don't have souls yet as I proved earlier they are capable of suffering. Therefore their suffer will never be gratified. Gratuitous suffer is incompatible with idea of all loving and just god.My opponent doesn't really address this point. He merely states that it's human fault. It still doesn't explain how on earth is it right to punish innocent creatures for human sin. It doesn't explain why god would put a tree of knowledge in Eden, it looks almost as if god wanted people to sin so he could punish and judge them later on. It doesn't explain what kind of gratification animals get after death. Are we supposed to believe that all loving and all powerful being created animals only to let them suffer for long years and then annihilate them? I stated that if Pro believes only humans have souls, he has to confront a hard problem. At which moment during evolution humans got soul? Pro believes in evolution and he believes Adam and Eve existed. These are both incompatible beliefs. Adam and Eve couldn't be first humans for very simple reason. Their human parents existed earlier, and possessed all human emotions, consciousness, awareness etc. At some step as we go back in history we arrive at a moment when soulless parents give birth to child with soul. It means that even though they were humans to the same extent as their offspring they didn't even have a chance to be redeemed. In other to repair it Pro would have to reject evolution or Christian doctrine of soul. It disproves Christian god once and for all.I think I addressed and refuted all Pro's arguments. On the contrast he wasn't able to address mines.Therefore vote Con!This is the last round, my opponent can't make further arguments or rebuttals.[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...Report this Argument Pro As Con states above, that i can't make further arguments or rebuttals. Even though Con asks me several questions in his rebuttals, I will respect this and not post any further arguments or rebuttals. However, I will post a conclusion sentence. Conclusion: I don't believe Con refuted all of my arguments, and I think I refuted all of his. Vote Pro!Report this Argument
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by fishhunter61 1 year ago
Well I guess, but not one vote was cast.
Posted by ZenekPr0 1 year ago
I don't think it was a waste of time.
Posted by fishhunter61 1 year ago
Well, that was a waste of time. Nobody won.
Posted by fishhunter61 1 year ago
Thanks!
Posted by ZenekPr0 1 year ago
Thank you:D
Posted by Overnight 1 year ago
Really good debate! Good arguments made by both sides.
Posted by ZenekPr0 1 year ago
It's obviously off debate, but just in case if someone was interested why G"del's ontological argument doesn't really prove god, here are some objections:

1. Analitic argument will never prove synthetic propositions

It simply means, that wordplays, and tinkering with definitions will never ever prove that some real object actually exists.

2. Argument has to be both valid and sound

I actually presented this objection in my rebuttal. Proof is formally valid or correct if you can't accept its premises and get any other conclusion without reaching contradiction. Argument becomes sound if there are good reasons to accept its premises, something that my opponent missed

3. It can be used to prove anything.

If you atually looked up G"del's ontological argument, you know it uses phrase "positive propertty" As you can imagine what is positive and what isn't is fully arbitrary. I may just say that positive means "Unicorn like" and that being Unicorn like is Unicorn like property and that necessary existence is unicorn like property as well. Therefore I can use G"del's argument to prove the existence of unicorns.

4. Possibility in modal logic isn't what we usually mean by posilbility.

In many worlds semantics of modal logic if something is possible it means it exists in at least one possible world. If thats what you mean by "possible" then ok, but I doubt it.

When we say that something is possible what we really mean is that we can imagine such state of affairs when it happens. it may be called epistemic or logical possibility or conceivability.. It tells us nothing whether something is actually or metaphysically possible. To measure this we would have to be able to measure objective properties of objective external world. It's impossible because we're restrained by our perception of reality.
Posted by Lonely-Bird 1 year ago
Thermodynamics does not prove the existence of god. Ontology is metaphysics aka a branch of philosophy. Said arguments cannot prove the existence of god because no test exists to prove the existence of god. Deductive arguments prove nothing because they can manipulate falsehoods or assertions as easily as concrete, provable, testable fact. When you can provide a test for god you can then state god does or doesn't exists. Until that time you are engaging in philosophy.
Posted by fishhunter61 1 year ago
Lonely-Bird, All of my arguments are provable and testable. Ontological arguments are concrete, provable and testable, you obviously didn't look at my source which proved that it is provable. Here is it, maybe you could check it out, http://www.spiegel.de... . The reference to thermodynamics was to prove nothing can not create something, making there a need for a god. The bottom line was my closing, and i obviously didn't put an argument in there. Thanks for your concern.
Posted by Lonely-Bird 1 year ago
Fishhunter's arguments are not concrete, provable, testable arguments. Ontological arguments are metaphysical and as such are not concrete, provable and testable. The reference to thermodynamics does not prove the existence of god. The bottom line is that there is no test for god. Belief is belief.
No votes have been placed for this debate.