God is real
Debate Rounds (4)
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.
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.
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
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.
4. Our universe. Scientists say that our universe is expanding. Who is doing this? It can not just expand for no reason
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by philochristos 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.