The Instigator
IanScottWilson
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
GOP
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

God is Great.

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 3 votes the winner is...
GOP
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/1/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,801 times Debate No: 34434
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

IanScottWilson

Con

I am con: the existence of any 'god' cannot be proven, nor is any god great. I will allow my opponent to choose the god whose existence and 'goodness' they wish to defend. Please accept the debate and provide your first argument, which I will contradict in the proceeding round.
GOP

Pro

I choose to argue for the God of Christianity, as Con allowed me to choose a deity to defend.

The historically solid writings

The existence of God can be proven. For example, God revealed His greatness through the Bible. The Bible is "66 separate writings, written over 1600 years, by 40 different people, in 3 different languages, on 3 different continents." [1] The writers of the Bible did not know each other, and yet testified the same thing. To understand this, you must look at the Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Now, the crucifixion of Jesus is recorded on Matthew 27:32-56, Mark 15:21-41, John 19:17-30, and Luke 23:26-43.
His burial is mentioned on Matthew 27:57-61, Mark 15:42-47, John 19:38-42, and Luke 23:50-24:12.
Last, but not least, His resurrection is recorded in Matthew 28, Mark 16, John 20, and Luke 24.

After all, John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." With all of this information, we not only know that God showed us His existence, but also that God is kind, merciful, and just.

God also revealed His greatness through the Israelite people, and He included many prophecies regarding them.

Isaiah prophesied the global return of Jews to Israel

Isaiah 43:5-6 prophesied, "5 Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west; 6I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters
from the ends of the earth;"


There were Sephardic Jews around Spain from the West, and Yemenite Jews from the East. [2] From the North, there were tons of Jews from Russia (formerly Soviet Union) [3] and Ethiopian Jews from the South. [4]

The ruins of Israel would be rebuilt

Now, Amos 9:11 and 9:13 record, "In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: ... Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt." According to International Human Development Indicators, Israel is #16 in terms of HDI ranking, and rose from 0.773 in 1980 to 0.900 HDI today. [5]

Israel would prevail over its enemies

Isaiah 41:12-14 says, "12 Thou shalt seek them, and shalt not find them, even them that contended with thee: they that war against thee shall be as nothing, and as a thing of nought. 13 For I the Lord thy God will hold thy right hand, saying unto thee, Fear not; I will help thee. 14 Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I will help thee, saith the Lord, and thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel." This is supported by how Israel defeated many countries that were bigger than it, such as Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria. [6]

Israel would be flourished with lush vegetation, and supply the whole world with fresh produce
Additionally, Isaiah 41:18-20 adds, " 18 I will open rivers in high places, and fountains in the midst of the valleys: I will make the wilderness a pool of water, and the dry land springs of water.19 I will plant in the wilderness the cedar, the shittah tree, and the myrtle, and the oil tree; I will set in the desert the fir tree, and the pine, and the box tree together: 20 That they may see, and know, and consider, and understand together, that the hand of the Lord hath done this, and the Holy One of Israel hath created it." To corroborate this prophecy, Jewish National Fund has more than 250 million trees in Israel. [7] Moreover, Israel is a major exporter of agricultural products, despite the fact that the dry country is not naturally conducive to farming. After all, Isaiah 27:6 prophesied, "He shall cause them that come of Jacob to take root: Israel shall blossom and bud, and fill the face of the world with fruit." According to Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "citrus, the country's oldest export sector, remains the third largest agricultural export, with 250,000 tons of oranges, pink and white grapefruits, lemons, pomelos, and several varieties of easy-peeling tangerines, as well as concentrates, juices and other products, shipped abroad annually." [8]

Science facts:

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." - Leviticus 17:11
It is scientifically proven that blood is a vital necessity. Red blood cells carry oxygen around and nourish other cells in the entire human body. [9]

Job 28:24-25 says, 24 For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven;
25 To make the weight for the winds; and he weigheth the waters by measure." This is interesting to note, because the fact that air has weight was only proven three hundred years ago. [10]

Finally, 2 Samuel 22:16 reveals, "And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the Lord, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils." [11] Who could have known that there were channels in the sea? Keep in mind that this science fact, as well as the aforementioned scientific accuracies, were all written down prior to modern scientific breakthroughs.

By the way, the word "channels" is referring to valleys, as mentioned in the NIV Bible. I simply chose KJV for all of the verses.

Conclusion:

Basically, these prophecies also prove how omnibenevolent God is. He demonstrated His love by regathering the Jews and by blessing the entire world with Israel's agricultural products. Most of all, He gave His son to pay for our sins, so that we could be forgiven by believing in Him. He lets us know that He exists through solid historical information, (do not forget that there were many people that did not know each other, and yet testified the same thing), accurate prophecies, and precise science facts.

Who could have known that Israel was going to return prosperously? Who could have known that there were valleys in the seas? Who could have known that air had weight? How could one explain how Israel is able to thrive agriculturally, even though the geography is not naturally suitable for farming? How could a small nation such as Israel have defeated multiple nations? Would it be logical to rationalize Israel's success without using God as an explanation, even though there are many written prophecies hundreds of years prior to their fulfillments?

Again, keep in mind that these were all written hundreds of years prior to modern scientific breakthroughs as well as
Israel's historical actions.

I wish Con the best of luck in his next responses.

Sources:
1. http://carm.org...
2. http://www.ifcj.org...
3. http://www.columbia.edu...
4. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...
5. http://hdrstats.undp.org...
6. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...
7. http://www.jnf.org...
8. http://www.mfa.gov.il...
9. http://pedspain.nursing.uiowa.edu...
10. http://www.icr.org...
11. http://www.bibletoday.com...




Debate Round No. 1
IanScottWilson

Con

IanScottWilson forfeited this round.
GOP

Pro

Well, my opponent forfeited his round. I am ready when you are, Ian.

Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
IanScottWilson

Con

IanScottWilson forfeited this round.
GOP

Pro

Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
IanScottWilson

Con

I must admit to being slightly mischievous in this debate. I forfeited several rounds because I was waiting for my opponent to place some type of argument or proof for the existence of god. Nothing, thus far, has come out of that. I shall now interject. I shan't need the time he has wasted.

Fact- Bad things happen in this world.
Possible explanations-
1- God causes bad things to happen (Evil)
2- God knows bad things happen, but doesn't intervene (Evil)
3- God does not have the power to stop them (Not God)
4- God does not exist

There is no evidence to believe in god. None whatsoever. Everything that happens can be explained or contains the possibility to be explained using non-supernatural methods. We know what we know BECAUSE of the scientific method, and not because of any sort of divine intervention. We know that certain things work because we can test them. It follows that just because it cannot be tested, does not mean we should say it is likely. God, or the supernatural, are possible, I grant you, though extremely unlikely. They fall into the category of myth.

My first contention, more of an outrage really, is at this extremely frightening definition of good. He would claim that good, as he knows it, comes from the bible. At this we should shudder and take flight for I cannot think of a more respected book in the history of humankind which has shown to be downright evil in terms of morals. Let us not cherry pick the good from the bible, as it is sometimes there, but also beware of the horrible things it would command us to do. This includes, but is not limited to, keep slaves, not allow women a voice in hardly any matter, mutilate your child's genitals and indeed murder your child if you hear the voices telling you to do so, and last but mist certainly not least is the commandments from god ordering the genocide of several different peoples. This, comrades, I hardly call good morals.
As for his true definition of morality which is another form of the golden rule, I must point out that this does not originate from Judaism or Christianity (certainly not Islam) but is, in fact, innate in our species because it is beneficial. That is to say I do not believe, and neither do any respectable scientists (among them Laurence Kraus and Richard Dawkins), that there is in our universe and objective, absolute morality. However, I must also concede on this point that the golden rule should seem like a quite basic tenant of ethics, so long as the one proclaiming it is a good person to start with. As Christopher Hitchens has said, the golden rule is only as good as the person using it. You wouldn't want Charlie Manson treated like you want to be treated.

So, I would see the golden rule as a very basic explanation of the term good. I wish, also, to present what I view as good: universal suffrage, human rights, freedom of expression, and overall comfort-ability of life. I am a humanist, and I adopt their principles.

I do apologize, as well, for having to continue to debate the good, but I shall do it very quickly. My opponent refers to the ten commandments as what he views as good. I say hogwash; they are a very poor list of morals with the first three or four only having to do with God being jealous and vein, while the others are very loosely relevant. I would say the only two commandments that can be called "good" are do not murder or steal, which would seem to make god a hypocrite. And once again, I say that morals are generally self-evident, but we should understand good as far as the UN declaration of human rights does, or those of the beliefs of the Humanist Association.

Now, onto the real debate. I do certainly not consider loving my enemies to be good. Actually it is a rather disgusting idea. No, I shall not love my enemies, I shall hate them. For to be my enemies, they must have done something that was not love, and hate will be returned. This is clearly not a moral principle. And neither does it show that Christianity is a force for good in the world.

As far as Jesus caring for the poor, I wish! If only, I say, the Christians acted like their Christ. If only Jesus" social policies were followed and socialism was adopted. If only the words of Jesus were carried out by Christians. Again, the gospel has little to do with how Christians have acted for nearly two thousand years. The question is if Christianity is a force for good, not whether Jesus said some rather sweet things.

I offer, then, that my opponent has NOT fulfilled the task by showing that Christianity is a force for good, but also understands good as something most would consider evil. As a result I shall write why Christianity is evil, and needs to be abolished.

Shall I start with the Spanish Inquisition, or perhaps the many Jews that the Vatican handed over to the Fuhrer, the somewhat silent acceptance and cheering on of the third reich, or even, maybe, I shall start with the lover of poverty Mother Theresa. No, I need but name one thing, currently occurring, which shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that not only is Christianity not a force for good in the world, but is indeed evil. That is Ratzinger's position of "AIDS is probably pretty bad, but condoms are worse."

For such a statement to be made, by a rich man who is evidently not interested in making the world a better place, who was a member if Hitler Youth, who would have hundreds of thousands of people (men, women, and children) die, who has the audacity to call himself the mouth and ear of God, my comrades, this is not a good force in the world. With over a billion Catholics, Christianity can be said to be mainly part of this sick and twisted non-idealist, totalitarian faith.
In conclusion, I wish to say this: one may do good as a non-believer, indeed perhaps more than a believer (we certainly commit less crime). Christianity is NOT a force for good in the world, and for my opponent to say otherwise, he would need to explain away all of the actions of this wretched company (the Vatican).

As my opponent is a Christian I ask this: isn't it fantastic you were born into the right religion?
I also ask: Why do you not believe in the Norse Gods? Or ancient Egyptian Gods? etc...

I leave him then with a challenge. I will call it the Hitchens challenge:

Name for me one moral or ethical action that a believer can do, that a nonbeliever cannot do.
Also, name one evil action ONLY a believer could do.

I am sure that you will not be able to solve the first, as there is no answer, but the answer to the second pops so easily into everyone's head: the list is far too long.
GOP

Pro

I thank Con for his response.

First, God does not cause bad things to happen. Humans are the ones who cause bad things to happen. Second, God knows that bad things happen, but He does not intervene as He gave humans free will. Third, God is all powerful, but He lets evil exist since there is a purpose for it. However, Con implies that he believes God does not have a morally sound reason for letting evil exist. Ian, how could you know this? "Perhaps there is a higher purpose for "evil" to exist that we don't know of but God does, like when a toddler kicks and screams and cries when he gets his shots. Why, oh why doesn't someone stop the evil doctors causing this poor toddler to suffer? Because, even though the toddler doesn't realize it, the "evil" that is causing him pain is ultimately helping him. To claim that the world's 'evils' cannot possibly have a greater purpose is to claim omniscience yourself" (1).

Now, there are many medical miracles that people witness (2). Numerous children get haunted by using spiritual toys like the Ouija Board. In fact, even a witch warned people to "steer clear" of the toy (3). You said everything can be explained/contains the possibility to explained using non-supernatural methods. So, could you explain how the aforementioned cases occur?

My opponent refers to commands from the Old Covenant, which was meant for the Israelites back then (4). Yet, Con says "us" as if those are direct commands for us to follow today. Furthermore, God only killed many people because He is just, and therefore must punish sin (otherwise He would not be just). In the process of punishing it, He made sure that the Israelites would not be harmed with immorality, lest it would prevent the birth of the Messiah (5). Technically speaking, the Golden Rule does come from the Judeo-Christian beliefs. However, the only difference is that God specifically made the Rule innate in our species (Romans 2:14-15). I am glad that my opponent brought this up, because this only proves the Bible true even further. The verses prove how everybody knows the Golden Rule, regardless of how geopolitically separated they are. For example, China was geopolitically isolated for thousands of years (6). Despite the isolation, the Chinese still knew the Golden Rule, because it was written in their hearts. After all, Confucius himself said, "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." Again, I say that the fact that everyone knows the same Rule is because of God. Where would all those isolated people know their senses of morality from?

I believe that human rights and all those concepts that Con mentioned are good, as long as they are in harmony with the Bible. However, some of those things can be abused and go beyond the line of morality. For example, one can express pornographic messages in public, but that would cause other people to commit adultery. Also, liberals often justify abortion, saying that woman can do whatever they want to their bodies. However, they fail to realize that what's growing in the womb is an independent human being that is even capable of having a different blood type.

My opponent fails to realize that God came up with these commandments because He did not want anybody to worship any other gods (which were unreal). By doing these things, they would be keeping themselves away from the truth, therefore signifying the sinfulness of breaking those commandments. God also did not want anybody to say His name unnecessarily. This is not because the Lord has ego issues, but because people would be blaspheming His holy name when they are supposed to worship Him. For the fourth commandment, my opponent needs to know is that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for Sabbath (Mark 2:27). My opponent simply made a straw-man argument when he said that "three or four" commandments have to do with God being jealous or vain. When one looks at each one of these commandments, he would be able to see that these were written for the betterment of men. Those morals are self-evident, but I repeat that The Law is written on peoples' hearts everywhere regardless of isolation. Moreover, Con says, "The only two commandments that can be called 'good' are do not murder or steal, which would seem to make god a hypocrite." When did God ever murder, Ian? When did He ever steal? Also, not all killings are murder. God has killed many people, but none of those killings happened to be murder. There are criminals facing capital punishments, but are capital punishments murder? No. God was simply being a law enforcer, and a just one at that.

Loving your enemies is good, because hatred would only bring up another cycle of hatred. This is proven by how a Hindu man named Gandhi did not fight the British with love in lieu of hate. If Gandhi used violence, then that would have only brought up more grudges among both the British and the Indians. After all, he said, "Whenever you are confronted with an opponent, conquer him with love.”

Most people who are considered as "Christians" are not really Christian. For example, Roman Catholics (who make up half of the global "Christian" population) do not believe in the sufficiency of Jesus' sacrifice to be saved. They believe in faith and works, instead of faith alone (7) Christianity, if properly followed, would be a force for good. The true Christians happen to be Baptists or Presbyterians (a lot of them happen to be born-again), and it wasn't those groups who committed mass murders like the Catholics did. Con brings up events like the Spanish Inquisition, which unfortunately does not help his argument one bit. In fact, I am happy that this supports the Bible even further. The Bible says that there will be many wolves in sheep's clothing in Matthew 7:15, such as the various popes and other false prophets like Joseph Smith of Mormonism. Such people who follow the wolves in sheep's clothing are not saved, for they believe in spiritually dangerous heresies.

Contrary to Ian's conclusion, I wish to say this:
An unbeliever may strive to be a "good" person in an earthly sense, but a born-again Christian (like a typical Baptist or a Presbyterian) would usually have the upper hand in that. History proves that a lot of non-Christians like Catholics (8) and Atheists (Joseph Stalin, anyone?) have committed mass murders (9). After all, the Bible said that unbelievers are indeed wicked. Now, Con makes the baseless assumption that I was born into the Christian faith. I was in fact born into practicing Hindu family, and I converted to Christianity years later. I do not believe in the other gods because none of them have left behind records of miracles, prophecies, or have come up with scientific accuracies, unlike the God of Christianity.

Actually, one moral action that a believer can do is continually repent to God after he sins. An unbeliever cannot do this, because, well, he is an unbeliever. However, an unbeliever can repent and believer the Gospel, but then he would already be turning into a believer. Plus, that would not be continual repentance when he first becomes a Christian. He would only perpetually repent (after sinning) after becoming a believer. There is not a single evil action that only a believer can do. Everybody (whether one is a believer or not) is able to break what's written in the Ten Commandments.

Sources:

1. http://www.debate.org...
2. http://undergroundhealthreporter.com...
3. http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk...
4. http://carm.org...
5. http://carm.org...
6. http://china.mrdonn.org...
7. http://carm.org...
8. http://history.howstuffworks.com...
9. http://www.hawaii.edu...









Debate Round No. 4
IanScottWilson

Con

You give me a lot of fluff on the possibility of the existence of god. I say that god is possible, but highly unlikely. If there were a god, he would be made to answer for so many crimes. He allowed more than six million Jews to die. Why? (etc...)

Ok, if Jesus died for our sins take into account this: EVOLUTION. Evolution is scientific fact. We know more about evolution than we do about gravity or electricity. Evolution shows that there was no adam and eve in the garden story, and therefore discredits original sin, which leads to the notion that Jesus died for what exactly?

I'm glad I don't have a boss who gives me the freedom to do something, but when I mess it up kill me. That is the god you worship. You worship a god who resorts to genocide when humans were 'bad' in his eyes.

As for the ten commandments. It's a pretty lousy list. Really, the first few are about how jealous god is. Really? A perfect being, but oh dear he is jealous? The only things on that list that are actual laws are murder and steal. The bible is cherry picked from. You choose what you want from the bible and leave out the 'bad' parts like killing homosexuals, or disobedient children. The bible is filled with grotesque stories. One of my favorite is Lot offering his daughters up to a mob to be raped. Or perhaps the one where a few kids make fun of a bald man and in return god sends bears after them to tear them apart. Such good morality there.

More than the lack of evidence for a god (oh the bible says it, and the people in the bible say so), I am glad there isn't a god, because he sounds utterly ruthless. I would never want to be a slave in HIS (not hers, by the way) eternal north korea.

Thank you for engaging in the debate. I urge you strongly to watch this: https://www.youtube.com...
GOP

Pro

I thank Ian for his response.

I say that God's existence is not unlikely at all, provided that there are lots of info that He has given us. The information that I have talked about (which are the points that you have dropped in this debate) are prophecies about Israel, how 40 people wrote the books in the Bible, and the scientific accuracies.

Con says, "If there were a god, he would be made to answer for so many crimes. He allowed more than six million Jews to die. Why?" It looks like Ian either did not read my argument carefully, or have read my argument at all. I have already stated that God gave us free will, which allowed us humans to commit various types of immoral acts. That would be our fault for using free will unwisely. Also, Con makes the same mistake of believing that God does not have a morally sound reason for allowing these bad things to happen. Again, how could you know this? Maybe there is a greater purpose for bad things to happen that only God knows of. "To claim that the world's 'evils' cannot possibly have a greater purpose is to claim omniscience yourself" (1).

Additionally, my opponent brings up Evolution to disprove the story of Adam and Eve. However, the only problem is that evolution did not occur at all, and is simply nothing more than just an interesting theory. To begin with, there are many missing transitional links between fossils (2). This is called the evidence of absence, or evidence showing that the process of "evolving" never occurred. Moreover, the fossil "evidence" is contradicted by DNA sequences data. A science writer named Roger Lewin stated, "The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories" (3). A geneticist named N.A. Takahata also said, "Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination" (4). So, my point about Jesus' sacrifice (for our sins) still stands.

The reason why God punishes people when they abuse their freedom immorally is that He is just. Also, you are making a straw-man argument when you say that God kills you when you mess up. The truth is that God is slow to anger (Numbers 14:18) and He did not always kill people, even in the Old Testament. My God resorts to killing people only when things are exceedingly bad to a certain measure, as implied by the "slow to anger" part. I also repeat that He killed people because He is just.

My argument about the Ten Commandment still stands. I have already explained that they were ultimately for the betterment of men, not because God has personal ego issues. Even from Con's perspective, the "only things" that are "actual laws" are supposed to be more than not murdering and not stealing. He omits the part about lying, adultery, not honoring your parents (you are here because of them) and coveting. We must recall the fact that Con called himself a secular humanist. So, wasn't he supposed to consider things like adultery and lying in his list too? After all, a humanist is someone that is concerned for the welfare of other human beings (5). Furthermore, there are no 'bad' parts in the Bible. There are events in which homosexuals and disobedient children are killed, but then again, Con did not even bother to read my argument about God punishing sin as He is just. Also, the Bible is filled with "grotesque stories" to show us the failure and sinfulness of people. Lot wrongfully let his daughters be raped by a mob, but events like that were recorded so that we could further learn what is right and wrong (1st Corinthians 10:11). Likewise, there were 42 (not a few) kids that made fun of a bald prophet (not a mere man). The young lads expressed malice when they said, "Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!"

By saying "go up", the 42 lads were referring to how they wanted the prophet Elisha to be gone, or dead. This can be related to how Elisha's predecessor, Elijah, ascended to heaven in 2 Kings 2:11. Also, the term 'baldhead' was one of “contempt in the East, applied to a person even with a bushy head of hair (6). "Lepers had to shave their heads, so such a statement could easily have been a deliberate and malicious insult, something dangerous in a mob that can quickly get out of hand" (7).

I conclude that my opponent made an error by saying that God sounds utterly ruthless. On the contrary, Deuteronomy 4:31 says, "(For the LORD thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them." The only problem is that people choose to disobey God in a continual manner, which caused God to take just actions of punishing them accordingly.

Sources:

1. http://www.debate.org...
2. http://www.icr.org...
3. Roger Lewin, "Family Feud," New Scientist (vol. 157, January 24, 1998), p. 39.
4. N. A. Takahata, "Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics (vol. 26, 1995), p. 343.
5. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
6. Jamieson, R., Fausset, A., & and Brown, D. (1997). Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (electronic ed.) (2 Ki 2:33). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
7. http://carm.org...

Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
How can Con say that? How can he look right at God, knowing he shares a special connection, and then just keeps bragging about how God doesn't exist? Con, I'm warning you, if you want to go to heaven, take Christian. Or else, I don't really know what to do. You will go to hell.
Posted by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
God IS great. Congrats, Grand Old Party. :)
Posted by IanScottWilson 3 years ago
IanScottWilson
and as for the stats he is using. They are just wrong.

Israel doesn't make the list...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by IanScottWilson 3 years ago
IanScottWilson
I must also point out, though ill leave it from the debate for now, that writing in a book do not prove the existence of god, even if they prove the existence of Jesus. (Which they Do Not). Everyone seems to forget about how the bible was put together in Nicaea. It was done by an editorial committee, not angels etc... If I write a book from several viewpoints, that doesn't mean those viewpoints have happened. The archeological evidence is scarce, at best, and nonexistent generally.

I hate when the Israel situation is brought up. It's tiresome. Prophecy shmomecy. Again, if you follow that logic and those vague understandings of fortune telling then you might as well start to worship Nostradamus. I lived in Israel for the last 2 years and know that there are things that the Muslims say to prove their book correct, just as well as every other religion. Christianity isn't special. It really isn't.
Posted by IanScottWilson 3 years ago
IanScottWilson
I feel GOP should have used his time more wisely- using every character he could to provide evidence.
Posted by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
@GOP
Good points -
if it were a true 5 round debate (no forfeit) you could work from the "evidence for God existence" as a benevolent God to the definition of morally good (pleasing to God).

without a real opponent you have 5 rounds of waiting to vote.
Posted by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
Of course, Crypto.

The fact that He isn't restricted by anything answers commonly-asked questions such as, "Where did God come from?"
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Oh, God is also great in the sense that he created the Universe and can act outside the laws of science and such, but you can just ignore that part. xD
Posted by IanScottWilson 3 years ago
IanScottWilson
Yeah, choose whichever you'd like. It's a long list.
Posted by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
Second thought, nevermind. You said the opponent can choose.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
IanScottWilsonGOPTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con may have made the most idiotic fallacy I have ever seen in Round 4. That kind of sarcasm don't fly here, pal.
Vote Placed by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
IanScottWilsonGOPTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit and Pro used sources.
Vote Placed by justin.graves 3 years ago
justin.graves
IanScottWilsonGOPTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Reason being: Pro used sources, Con just trolled of forfeited.