The Instigator
harimsharma
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Kentrix
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

God exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 2 votes the winner is...
harimsharma
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/2/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,830 times Debate No: 36273
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (73)
Votes (2)

 

harimsharma

Con

I believe that god doesn't exist because we can't feel him, we can't see him and we do not even have any proof of his existence. Just because some ancient texts say that there was somebody who created us and some people have created their idols and placed them in some places doesn't mean it/he/she exists.
Kentrix

Pro

May I ask you this? If you looked out of your window, you will see houses, streets, cars, people. Your house is there because someone decided that more houses are needed. Nobody "accidentally" builds a house. Everything around you is not an accident. Are you telling me that a meteor hit this planet Accidentally and thus we existed? I think not! Our brain for instance, we only use 11% of it. We don't even know how it works, yet it does. Our brain is the most complex thing known to mankind, and you're trying to tell me that it came about because a space rock hit another space rock, and fish started to walk? I can assure you, I am not an accident :)
Debate Round No. 1
harimsharma

Con

harimsharma forfeited this round.
Kentrix

Pro

Kentrix forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
harimsharma

Con

harimsharma forfeited this round.
Kentrix

Pro

Kentrix forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
73 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Orangatang 3 years ago
Orangatang
@leonardlewis4:

It's quite disturbing how you answer your own questions by yourself to try to make my argument look circular, when in fact it is nothing close. Evolution is true because there is much scientific evidence for it, and it passes all the criterion of a scientific theory with flying colors. Abiogenesis is way more likely than the God explanation because of Occam's razor, and because the earth has all the necessary ingredients and the right environment 3.5 billion years ago (also supported by evidence) for such a phenomenon to occur. If anything the theist is the one who always make the circular argument:

Atheist: How do you know God exists?
Theist: Because my Holy Book states it.
Atheist: How do you know your Holy Book is true?
Theist: Because it is the word of God.

The theist argument is so beautifully circular when I answer questions by myself isn't it? At this point I would love to educate you leonard and put you on check with a debate regarding the likeliness of evolution and abiogenesis compared to the likeliness of God. I understand if you don't wish to accept, as the theist doesn't have much to work with but pseudo-science, invalid arguments, logical fallacies, and unjustified beliefs. If you are so sure your right then why not just prove it? Here is the debate, accept it if you are feeling strong: http://www.debate.org...
Posted by leonardlewis4 3 years ago
leonardlewis4
@GarthVader/@Orangatang,

In fact, the joke in that community (regarding the fruit fly accelerated mutation experiments) is: "The fruit flies refused to become anything but freakish mutant fruit flies".
Posted by leonardlewis4 3 years ago
leonardlewis4
@Orangatang,

| RE: "I would say moral analysis always involves reasoning."

And I would agree... In fact, I said as much. If you'll read what I wrote, you'll notice that I noted how the preconditions (like Morality and the Laws of Logic) are interdependent. Meaning, yes, moral analysis always involves reasoning AND moral standards enable reasoning. The difficulty you're having is that you're thinking of morality in very narrow (and common) terms. I explained the sense in which morality is a precondition of intelligibility. I could ask, "Why be rational?" The notion that "we ought to be rational" is a moral claim. Your assertion that morality and reason are merely evolved traits of the human mind is absurd... Why? Because that claim enters into an infinite regress, with no rational escape... For example:

Q: Why are we rational?
(evolutionist): Because it has survival value.

Q: Why are we moral in any sense?
(evolutionist): Because it has survival value.

Q: What is it about life or nature that directs organisms to value survival? Can you account for that?
(evolutionist): Everything wants to live!

Q: Yes organisms do. But that doesn't answer the question. Who/What told the first two building blocks of life that it was needful and valuable to become an organism and reproduce and ultimately survive? Where did that morality originate?
(evolutionist): It just did. That's the way it works! Now leave me alone or I'll start talking about abiogenesis again!
Posted by GarthVader 3 years ago
GarthVader
Orangatang:

I have read the article you linked to regarding fly speciation, and the article did not present any definitive evidence, just pure speculation. The theory of evolution asserts that one species can become a completely different species by natural forces. However, the article doesn't demonstrate this is the case at all. What the article demonstrates is variation WITHIN a species. In other words, it failed to demonstrate migration from one species to another; in Dodd's experiment, a fly in one generation is still a fly in another generation.

Additionally, one can easily see in the following quote from that article, that because we don't currently witness any speciation events in nature, scientists are having great difficulty in proving their theory of speciation. Thus, the theory of speciation is NOT fact because it has never been observed to occur; not in nature and not in the laboratory.

"We have several plausible models of how speciation occurs " but of course, it's hard for us to get an eye-witness account of a natural speciation event since most of these events happened in the distant past. We can figure out that speciation events happened and often when they happened, but it's more difficult to figure out how they happened. However, we can use our models of speciation to make predictions and then check these predictions against our observations of the natural world and the outcomes of experiments."

Additionally, although you claim that the theory of evolution is based on science, it is science which has proven that life is not created by non-living things. In fact, science has only been able to prove that life comes from living things. Therefore, there is no scientific basis for evolution, because evolution requires that life is created by the non-living...which of course violates natural laws.

Please try again to present some verifiable proof, not the wild speculations of academia and wishful thinkers.
Posted by leonardlewis4 3 years ago
leonardlewis4
@Orangatang,

So the Evolutionist is reduced to circular argument on top of circular argument:

Q: How do you account for the origins of life?
(Evolutionist): Evolution!

Q: Yes, but evolution assumes life... How do you REALLY account for the origins of life?
(Evolutionist): Abiogenesis!

Q: Wait... Abiogenesis has NEVER been observed in nature. Even if abiogenesis were possible, any amino acids which might yet have been formed by such a process would have been destroyed nearly instantly upon production by the atmospheric oxygen, since oxygen (either O2 or ozone) oxidatively degrades amino acids. Your Miller-Urey experiments proved this...
(Evolutionist): Well, the earth must have had an early reducing atmosphere... Yeah, that's it!

Q: How do you know the earth must have had an early reducing atmosphere?
(Evolutionist): Well, because abiogenesis requires it to form the building blocks of life (amino acids).

Q: Interestingly, if there had been an early reducing atmosphere when this abiogenesis was going on, the lack of an ozone layer would have meant that any amino acids formed in the primitive atmosphere would have been almost immediately destroyed by the intense ultraviolet radiation. Doesn't this create a lose-lose proposition for evolutionists?
(Evolutionist): No, abiogenesis must be true because evolution desperately needs it to be... Stop asking me so many questions!

Q: Are you sure you can account for the origins of life?
(Evolutionist): Yes, evolution!

...repeat (ad nasuem)...
Posted by leonardlewis4 3 years ago
leonardlewis4
@Orangatang,

Just in case you try to invoke Miller-Urey, I thought I'd include a little snippet of info regarding their so-called "experiments" in abiogenesis:

[1] "First, there was the simple fact of the tremendous amount of supposition involved in the original Miller-Urey experiments. Yes, the experiment successfully produced some amino acids, but it did so only as a result of the use of an atmosphere specifically engineered to yield amino acids, since simple molecules containing all the needed atoms were conveniently provided. Evolutionists justify the use of this atmosphere on the basis of their claim that the "early earth" had a reducing atmosphere (one lacking oxygen or other oxidizing agents). Yet, the sole reason that this reducing atmosphere is proposed is so that they can then use it to justify their theories! Instead of searching for evidence and then revising their theories to the data, they were (and are) engineering the (proposed) conditions to yield the data they desired. The "reducing atmosphere" of the early earth is completely an evolutionist construct. Evolutionists themselves will make the circular argument that the earth must have had an early reducing atmosphere, since we know that chemical evolution happened, and chemical evolution could only happen in a reducing atmosphere! In point of fact, there is absolutely no evidence that the earth has ever had a reducing atmosphere at any time, and the available evidence suggests the opposite. Even the oldest rock layers in the geologic column, those said by evolutionary geologists to predate the formation of life on earth, all show evidence that the earth had an oxidizing atmosphere at the time of their formation, due to the presence of oxidized minerals and metals contained in those rocks."

[1] http://www.studytoanswer.net...
Posted by leonardlewis4 3 years ago
leonardlewis4
@Orangatang,

You do realize that abiogenesis is a highly speculative and far-from-proven hypothesis with respect to origins, right? I understand that your entire origins theory (evolution) rests on that, but that doesn't make it true (no matter how desperately evolution needs it to be).

The scientific community freely admits that abiogenesis is merely a scientific hypothesis--void of any hard scientific evidence. However, the disciples of atheism and evolution continue to uphold this ridiculous religious doctrine as an escape device to avoid the need for a Creator.

Conclusive scientific evidence has been established only to prove micro-evolution... But macro-evolution, abiogenesis, punctuated equilibrium, and cosmic evolution remain an inconceivable and scientifically irreconcilable fairy tale myth.
Posted by Orangatang 3 years ago
Orangatang
For the reasons I have outlined, public schools around the country and the world teach evolution as fact. If you still want to ignore all the evidence I would be glad to debate you on the topic.
Posted by Orangatang 3 years ago
Orangatang
continued... because there is no compelling evidence to support it.
Article explains fly speciation in laboratories: http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
Posted by Orangatang 3 years ago
Orangatang
@GarthVader:

You are under a horrible misapprehension if you do not believe that evolution is a fact. Evolution is as much as a fact as is the theory of gravity. There is ridiculously overwhelming proof of evolution and substantial peer-reviewed evidence to support it. Not only is it accepted by the scientific community but it is the only scientific theory in town, which best explains and predicts features and functions of all organisms. By the way it shows that you do not know what evolution even is because you assume it explains the process of the emergence of living organism by non-living materials ("living things are given life by non-living things"). The process by which life forms from simple organic compounds is called abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Biological evolution is change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...). It is easily proven that biologic evolution in humans (or any other species) is true by just analyzing the DNA of parents and their offspring. The genetic composition does change. Scientists have also proven that species of flies evolve into a new species over many generations. It is obviously ridiculous to state that "one living species can transform itself into a completely different species." That is not what evolution is, nor what evolution implies. Successive generations gradually change in genetic composition such that over thousands or millions of years a new species develops. Since flies have very short lifetimes, it was possible for scientists to see them evolve into a new species over a relatively short period of time. If you are a creationist of some sort I would like to remind you that it is not a theory accepted by scientists because there i
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Orangatang 3 years ago
Orangatang
harimsharmaKentrixTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Harimsharma is correct in that there is no evidence or proof for a God, Kentrix did not convincingly reply with any proof or evidence. Harimsharma wins due to Kentrix not meeting his burden of proof. Kentrix also capitalized "Accidentally" in the middle of a sentence therefore Harimsharma gets the spelling and grammar point.
Vote Placed by leonardlewis4 3 years ago
leonardlewis4
harimsharmaKentrixTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Apparently Pro's first round argument completely demolished Con's position (logically). Con never answered Pro's questions/assertions.