The Instigator
Khons
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
JackLewis
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

God is real

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 4 votes the winner is...
JackLewis
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/29/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 454 times Debate No: 95749
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (4)

 

Khons

Pro

The first round is just trying to see who will go against me. NO Debating yet!!!
JackLewis

Con

I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Khons

Pro

The existence of God is a subject that has been debated for many eons. Many well known Christians have been shut down and got disproved on the existence of God, being a 15 year old, I wont know as much as theologians, but there is one thing that I can say. I have my self experience the love of God. I wont say many books evidence and other things, you could say that I am lying about this story that I am going to say. But I would not lie about this is something that I am very passionate about. So here it goes.
My "name" is Khons, two years ago I was at a summer camp and there was this girl that went there, she had muscular scoliosis, now you may say that is is not anything that can prove the existence just wait, during a prayer session she was there and you we prayed for her, in about two minutes she was healed. She could run and walk again.
There are also non-Christian text that also prove but I will let my oppose tell there side.
JackLewis

Con

Indeed, it is as you say, I can say that your claims are false, and that is what I shall assert as there is nothing more than mere tales and paintings that depict such "miracles." It is medically and scientifically impossible for someone who has been unable to walk for some time to simply begin walking again with no prior physiotherapy, this calls into the question whether this girl even had the condition you thought she had.

On another note, the Bible claims that God parted the Red Sea to allow the Israelites to escape from the Egyptians, yet not only is it impossible for the sea to be parted in such a way, as determined by scientific laws, but parts of the Red Sea are several hundred metres deep which would mean anyone crossing would fatally fall hundreds of metres down.

Another example of what can be deemed impossible, where the Bible claims that Jesus Christ changed water into wine, using nothing but his will. It is impossible to change the atomic structure of anything to something completely different using your will, touch or otherwise.

It has been proven that the Red Sea is several hundred, even thousands of metres deep, anyone can go confirm that with the right equipment and transport. It has also been proven that atoms exist and that they cannot be changed as the Bible claims they can. What has not been proven is that someone has or can be cured through prayer alone or that an all-powerful, all-knowing being exists that has supposedly granted these miracles. The Burden of Proof lies with the one making the claim, and the opposition claims that a higher power exists, I challenge them to show definitive proof in their response.
Debate Round No. 2
Khons

Pro

For one the girl I saw had muscle missing from her arms and legs, we saw it grow back. Two, the thing called science is not valid when it comes to God, this is because God is all powerful, so anything that does have to do with going against miracles is deemed not valid, and now the Red Sea, you saw that it is not possible for it to be parted, I say it is, and there is evidence that it did part, like at the bottom of the Red Sea they found a wheel of a Chariot, which they think is from the Pharaohs chariot. Now for the Water into wine, as I said before, with God it is possible, but there is also some science behind that. Go to the first link for that science, again with the Red Sea in the story itself,if you read it, that the ground became solid and they people walked through it with no problem. The thing is you are not looking at it from both sides, convincing and Atheist that God is real is nearly impossible, but give solid evidence that there is a God just through Miracle's is not possible. Plus the bible was written over a period of 2000 years and there were many many writers from many different times, from farmers, to tax collectors, to even kings. So the ideology of there not being a God is almost impossible. I say go out side now I ask you if the Big Bang was an accident then how did it become this beautiful. The author Lee Strobe wrote many books trying to figure out if God was real or not, when he started he was an atheist like you and he said that there was too much evades to disprove that God is real. So now I say give me the best evidence that you can give me.

http://www.wnd.com... (the Red Sea)
http://askjohnmackay.com... (water into wine)
https://scienceandbelief.org...
JackLewis

Con

The opposition says that using science is invalid to refute their claims, to say such is to say that all of the progress humans have made in the past several hundred years is invalid, science is how we have the technology we have now, how we have such advanced medicine and how we understand the universe as it is, while there is still much to make sense of, science has explained everything better than religion ever has.

As for the article provided here: http://www.wnd.com...
The article even states that the whereabouts of this "chariot wheel" are currently unknown, and the fact the diver didn't take it with him raises suspicions, almost like they knew examining the item further than a photo would reveal it as something else. From the photo provided in the article, it cannot positively be identified to any degree to being a chariot wheel.

https://scienceandbelief.org...
This article here is nothing but a scientist who is religious, believing in something that completely goes against his occupation, it proves nothing regarding my arguments with turning water into wine and the Red Sea parting. It defies all scientific explanation, he states, because it did not happen, which is what I assert and such has yet to be proven to have actually happened.

http://askjohnmackay.com...
This article suggests that Jesus Christ turned water into wine by creating carbon from nothing, which is just as ludicrous as what he was trying to explain reasonably.

Unfortunately, none of the opposition's three articles have proven anything beyond more tales of how these events happened, and even then none of the authors or anyone quoted is sure of how it happened, meaning it is all just baseless conjecture. I will concede to the fact that the Bible has been written by many people over the course of approximately 2000 years, however, this also leads to the point that humans have always had a knack for making up events or twisting the truth to make it sound better, this has not been a trait of the past 100 or so years.

As for the opposition challenging me to prove that such a being does not exist, as I stated in my previous response, the Burden of Proof lies with the person making the claim. The opposition is suggesting that there is a being that defies what laws and scientific explanation we all know, then they must prove it otherwise the scientific explanations that have more basis for being true will remain firmly in place as the truth. Which is always the issue when it comes to religious debates, the events of religion have always existed before official records were kept, making it exceedingly difficult to prove that anything of such ever happened.

We have had many tragedies in this day and age more severe than what has been depicted in the Bible, yet no miracle has happened to stop such tragedies, the religious will say that God has forsaken us for something we have done, the non-believers will say no such miracles ever happened. I would believe the opposition's story of a girl regrowing muscle in a matter of seconds or minutes if there was some kind of photo or video evidence, however it seems when ever a miracle such as this happens, there is no such evidence available.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Iacov// Mod action: Removed<

2 points to Pro (Sources), 2 points to Con (Conduct, S&G). Reasons for voting decision: I believe con had better conduct as pro seemingly tried to command con in the debate and con made such statements. Pro had multiple minor mistakes such as missed punctuation and misplaced words most likely due to autocorrect. I feel the arguments were of the same strength as both had rather strong defense with a lack of offense. Pro also provided more sources than con and these source did use evidence in favor pro, con did try to disprove these sources but does not take into account the claim that these acts were the work of a "divine being"

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Conduct is insufficiently explained. "Commanding" another debater (whatever that means) isn't clearly a conduct violation, and if the voter wishes to award conduct on this basis, it must be clear where the infraction was and why it is an infraction. (2) S&G is insufficiently explained. Minor errors is never sufficient reason to award this point " the debater's argument must be significantly more difficult to read and understand. (3) Sources are insfficiently explained. The voter appears to award this mainly on the basis of quantity rather than quality, which is not sufficient. Merely stating that one side did not sufficiently negate those sources does not establish their quality.
***********************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 2 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Swimwithcats// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: It is clear to me that Con took a more objective approach to discerning the truth of God's existence. He provides clear deductive reasoning and spot-on refuting of Pro's mere anecdotal claims, his strongest points being the lack of evidence for any miracles and other nonphysical claims. One cannot merely cite the bible nor rely solely on their own personal experience if they wish to objectively sway the mind of a non-believer.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain sources. Merely stating that one side didn't support their arguments is insufficient, as the voter must assess sources given by both sides. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both sides. That requires more than just broad generalizations about the approaches each side took and the generalized lack of information in one side's arguments. Those can play a substantial role in establishing why the voter views certain arguments as better, but the specific assessment of those arguments (in particular, why Con's arguments warrant a vote in his favor, and not just a vote against Pro) is still necessary.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 2 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: straightup.gong// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: I, myself, am an atheist. Ergo I do not believe in any god nor hell. Pro's story is completely impossible and you cannot expect people to believe it only because you say it's true. Furthermore, Pro did not use facts to back their claims which is why I said that Con had more convincing arguments and better conduct.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to assess the debate as it stands, and not to include their own views as a reason to vote, yet that appears to be a large portion of why the voter made their decision. Merely stating that one side didn't use facts to support their claims is not sufficient analysis, nor is restating point allocations without explaining them. The voter is required to specifically analyze arguments made by both debaters, and to explain every point allocation.
************************************************************************
Posted by Blazzered 2 months ago
Blazzered
RFD:
Convincing Arguments:
Round 1:
Acceptance.
Round 2:
-Pro's argument for the existence of God relies on a tale of his about a friend who was healed of her supposed illness by a prayer. Pro provides no proof oh his friends illness, nor of her being healed of it by a prayer.
-Con points out how Pro's story is simply scientifically impossible to have occurred. Con brings up some of the illogical stories in the bible such as the parting of the Red Sea and turning water into wine. Con claims the Red Sea is thousands of meters deep, ergo crossing it would only result in people falling to their death. Con claims "its been proven", but does not provide any proof.
While Con did not provide evidence for his claim on the Red Sea, he still did well to point out the impossibility of Pros story to be true, and pointing out how turning water into wine is simply illogical.
Round 3:
-Pro tells that his story is true, but still fails to provide evidence. The lack of evidence makes his argument invalid since evidence is everything. Pro provides sources to rebuttal Cons claims on the Red Sea and the turning water into wine. Pro also claims that science is not valid against God because God is "all powerful".
-Con points out that science is more reliable than any religion has ever been. Con then begins to point out the flaws in Pros sources, pointing out that they're biased, unreliable, or do not truly support Pros claims. Con points out that Pros source says that it is unclear who the chariot belonged too and how it got there, the other source comes from a biased christian scientist, and the last source gives an illogical explanation.
By this point, Con has showed Pros sources as unreliable, and Pro has presented no evidence to prove his claim. Pro has failed to uphold his burden of proof. I award Con points for convincing arguments.
Posted by distraff 2 months ago
distraff
So you have not verified that she even had the disease, the disease was actually cured, and are only basing all this one your amateur visual observations of "an indent" and your subjective determination that you felt more muscle. Not convincing at all. Sorry you are mad. hormones I guess.
Posted by Khons 2 months ago
Khons
You know what let me tell you something i know that this was true because of the fact not just her arm and if you keep saying then i will report you because this is pissing me off a lot. So stop and leave this alone i am only 15 so stop.
Posted by distraff 2 months ago
distraff
Are you an expert in her condition? How can you say she is healed just because of some indent you thought disappeared? The position of the body can greatly affect whether you see an indent. Have you checked on her later to see if her doctor found that her condition is gone? How do you know she had the condition in the first place?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If I claimed to see a cat in my yard you would probably just take my word for it. If I claimed that I saw an alien in my yard then you would ask for hard solid evidence. You would question me to get all the facts.
Posted by Khons 2 months ago
Khons
I saw the indent do you really want to debate on this. There was indent then no indent in arm she could not walk that well, look up muscular scoliosis on the internet
Posted by distraff 2 months ago
distraff
>> One fraud can't make up that all of us Christian's are frauds

I didn't say you were.

>> Distraff, as i said she was missing muscle i saw and touched it my self and i saw it before my own eyes, there was muscle after.

You can't tell if muscle grew back by feeling because when you feel someone it is often hard to detect their muscle because most people don't have a lot of it. You mostly feel fat and tissue. Also, the amount of flexing or the position you are in can greatly affect how much muscle you think there is.

In order to verify that the muscle grew back there needs to be actual medical tests to verify it. It also needs to be verified that she actually had the condition and not something more mild. It needs to be shown that it was actually cured and not just because of exersize, therapy, braces, or surgery which are especially effective for mild cases which are the majority of cases.

Anyway there are people claiming to see crazy things all the time. This person claimed to see any alien:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com...

For all these people who claim to see miracles, aliens, ghosts, bigfoot, reincarnation, there is a lack of unquestionable solid evidence like we have for other things.
Posted by Khons 2 months ago
Khons
One fraud can't make up that all of us Christian's are frauds
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by extian 1 month ago
extian
KhonsJackLewisTied
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 brought up a personal miracle as evidence for God, but Con pointed out Pro had not verified the condition that was "healed." Con also showed that the evidence of the chariot wheel was also unverified. Pro asserts that religious miracles are possible because God can do anything, but did not demonstrate first that God existed in order to perform miracles. Con did not use any sources, but the sources that Pro brought up were very weak, so that's a wash.
Vote Placed by Blazzered 2 months ago
Blazzered
KhonsJackLewisTied
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 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: RFD in the comments.
Vote Placed by distraff 2 months ago
distraff
KhonsJackLewisTied
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's claim of the chariot wheel was roundly refuted by Con as we do not know it even is. Pro claimed that the bible is written by many people making it more likely valid. Con pointed out humans have a tendancy to make stuff up. Pro mentioned that the big bang could not be an accident but did not elaborate further. Pro claimed to witness a miracle but Con mentioned that better evidence is needed and we need to verify the girl even had the condition mentioned. It is very obvious that Con won this debate.
Vote Placed by Gdougie 2 months ago
Gdougie
KhonsJackLewisTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:22 
Reasons for voting decision: I am a Christian. I was disappointed to see Pro not use a more appropriate debate structure, and provide more convincing arguments. Specifically, Pro's story may be true, however, pro failed to provide specific evidence. So conduct goes to con. However, when sources were provided by pro, con failed to provide sources to support claims. Con just used their own words to try and prove pro wrong. Therefore, pro used more reliable sources.