The Instigator
jp_porwisz10
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Burncastle
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

God is real

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 1 vote the winner is...
Burncastle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 308 times Debate No: 53102
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

jp_porwisz10

Pro

Round 1: Opening statements Round 2: Facts/Argument Round 3: Facts/Argument Round 4: Closing statements. I look forward to this argument. Good luck
Burncastle

Con

This opening statement will be short, as my position (atheism) does not require any proof or evidence. Being opposed to the motion 'God is real', my duty in this debate will simply be to debunk my opponent's arguments in favour of the motion. In other words, the burden of proof is on him.

Let me clarify a few things before we start the actual debate:

Atheism: The rejection of God claims. Atheism is 'not being convinced that a God exists'. It is not 'being convinced that a God doesn’t exist'.

Real: 'Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed' (Oxford dictionary)

God: For this particular term, I'm going to need my opponent's definition. I want to know which God he is referring to and I want to know the characteristics of the God he claims is real. I would like him to start his next round by providing me with these informations.

I hope for a stimulating debate. Good luck.

P.S. My opponent seems to have skipped his opening statement. According to his rules, his next round will be facts/arguments and his definition of God.
Debate Round No. 1
jp_porwisz10

Pro

There are many things for the evidence of God. For example, a woman in Brazil prayed to a picture of John Paul II to get rid of her cancer, and what do you think, he cancer disapered, no medicine or anything. I respect your beliefs. But there are so many instances of proof. For example, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. There are real roman accounts of his resurrection, and you still think he is not real? What?
Burncastle

Con

Thank you for your argument.

Do you know that cancer sometimes disappears for medically unknown reasons? You certainly do know that a lot of people that have cancer pray to be cured. Don't you think that it is more likely that these two events happened coincidentally to the same person? Can you explain to me why some people get better without praying and, more importantly, why not everyone who prays is cured? You have basically committed a post hoc fallacy; assuming that, because A happened before B, A must have been the cause of B. Furthermore, let's imagine that the prayer is actually what cured her; unless you believe that John Paul II is God, I fail to see how that is evidence for the existence of God.

Anecdotal evidence is the worst possible kind of evidence because humans are vulnerable to too many sources of bias.

Thank you for respecting my beliefs, but atheism is not a belief.

There are absolutely no extra biblical account of the resurrection of Jesus. And for the record, I do believe Jesus existed, but I do not believe that he was the son of God (or God himself) and I do not believe any of the miracles he apparently performed.

I would invite you again to tell me the characteristics that you attribute to your God.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
jp_porwisz10

Pro

1. The big bang
So basically a bunch of stuff blew up and created monkeys which turned into humans. Last time I heard such a fairy tale I was 6. Something has to cause such a thing, a thing known as god.

2.Us. How could we come from primates or organisms. Again, we have to originate from something else.

To be continued................

Good luck on your argument
Burncastle

Con

Your first argument is somewhat contradictory: You start by saying that you don't believe the Big Bang theory (at least that is what I understood when you compared it to a fairy tale), but then you say that it must have been caused by God.

On a side note, you seem to be confusing the Big Bang theory, abiogenesis and the theory of evolution, which are three totally separate things.

Your question 'How we could come from primates or organisms' is flawed: we are still primates and organisms (in fact every living thing is considered an organism). But to answer your broader question, we evolved (and are technically still evolving) through natural selection and genetic mutations which are passed down through generations. I am not quite sure what you mean by 'we have to originate from something else'.

The thing is, both arguments you just presented are absolutely irrelevant to the topic; even if the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory were proved false tomorrow, you would still need to present actual EVIDENCE for the existence of God.

Again, you failed to present me with the characteristics of your God, making it impossible for me to attack its existence.
Debate Round No. 3
jp_porwisz10

Pro

3. The ressurection of Jesus Christ. Yes, there are in fact real roman accounts of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ after being crucified was ressurected on the 3rd day.

4. Our universe. Scientists say that our universe is expanding. Who is doing this? It can not just expand for no reason
Burncastle

Con

I will again address your arguments one by one.

As I said earlier, there are no extra-biblical account for the resurrection of Jesus. Although this may seem like a 'my word against yours' type of situation, it isn't. On one side there is you claiming that Jesus did rise from the dead and saying that there are accounts of this outside of the Bible, but you seem unwilling (or unable) to present them to me or even tell me what they are. On the other side there is me, saying that there are no such documents. I may be wrong, and I would gladly admit that I'm wrong, if you would but present me with said documents (or provide a reference so that I can confirm).

Scientists indeed do say that the Universe is expanding, but asking 'who is doing this' is fallacious since it assumes that someone is the cause of the expansion of the Universe, instead of something (such as natural forces).

Since my opponent as failed to provide any convincing argument for the existence of God, I encourage the audience to vote for me.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Anybody who honestly investigates to attempt to disprove the resurrection of Jesus Christ will come to the same conclusion as did Lionell Luckhoo who is listed in the Guiness Book of World Records as the world's "most sucessful lawyer", and twice knighted by the Queen of England. He stated "I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer, appearing in many parts of the world........I say unequivocally the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compells acceptance by proof which leaves absolutlely no doubt." This has been the conclusion of many who set out in disbelief to prove that Jesus Christ did not rise from the grave and He was a liar or a lunitic, but not God as He claimed to be.
People do not want to believe on Jesus Christ because they know that if they believe on Him they will have to admit that they deserve to die and burn in hell and believing on Him as their Saviour will mean they will have to take sides with God against their own pride and the pleasures of their sin. Most people love their sin more than life, and they hold it all the way into the fire of hell. Few will believe on Jesus and be saved compared to the vast majority who will mistakenly finalize their death thinking the Creator cannot or will not keep them separated from Him in fire of Hell. Will you be one of the many or one of the few?
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Anybody who honestly investigates to attempt to disprove the resurrection of Jesus Christ will come to the same conclusion as did Lionell Luckhoo who is listed in the Guiness Book of World Records as the world's "most sucessful lawyer", and twice knighted by the Queen of England. He stated "I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer, appearing in many parts of the world........I say unequivocally the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compells acceptance by proof which leaves absolutlely no doubt." This has been the conclusion of many who set out in disbelief to prove that Jesus Christ did not rise from the grave and He was a liar or a lunitic, but not God as He claimed to be.
People do not want to believe on Jesus Christ because they know that if they believe on Him they will have to admit that they deserve to die and burn in hell and believing on Him as their Saviour will mean they will have to take sides with God against their own pride and the pleasures of their sin. Most people love their sin more than life, and they hold it all the way into the fire of hell. Few will believe on Jesus and be saved compared to the vast majority who will mistakenly finalize their death thinking the Creator cannot or will not keep them separated from Him in fire of Hell. Will you be one of the many or one of the few?
Posted by voice_of_truth 2 years ago
voice_of_truth
Uhh no offense jp_porwisz10 but the resurrection of Jesus happened over 2000 years ago even if it was real (which I highly doubt) Anyway millions of people pray to different gods everyday and some of them are bound to get lucky. And all the miracles occurred hundreds of years ago. Look at the miracles God gave us recently- the Cold Wars? YAY! The world wars? Awesome! We just love watching innocent people die! Don't tell me God made them happen to punish the sinners because there were plenty of "God-fearing" and "God-loving" people who died.
Posted by philochristos 2 years ago
philochristos
You say that round 1 is for opening statements, but you didn't give an opening statement in your round 1.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by philochristos 2 years ago
philochristos
jp_porwisz10BurncastleTied
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: Pro didn't do much to defend his arguments against Con's criticism, and I think Con's criticism successfully undermined Pro's arguments, so arguments to Con.