The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
JustCallMeTarzan
Con (against)
Winning
55 Points

God more likely than no, exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,430 times Debate No: 2675
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (16)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

God's existance can be proven, or at least is the most reasonable explanation. as a note though, i am not saying proven in terms of deductive fact. i'm using it in terms of proponderance of evidence, more likely than not, in a court of law.

(proof is known to have double meaning. it can mean evidence or conclusive proof. i'm using it in the former sense.

theists are known for being signled out for this phenomenon (miracles converting after nderf.org prohpests etc) over atheists etc.

you're right that there could be explanations other than an intelligence that is causing all this (you could even insist if a wonder worker in fact came and started doing miracles in the name of God that there might be another explantion, analogous to a degree to show the obstenance of your position given that this stuff happens to theists)
if people in gneeral had miracles etc then you'd have a point, but you don't have that.
the evidence is in favor of theists, and hte presumption is in favor of them.
if the thing that distinguishes them is their belief... then at best you could simply insist that it could be their mind or something. but, when the distinguishing variable is their belief, that's not the most obvious explanation.
atheists have the burden to rebut that presumption.

the most straightforward explanation is their belief itself distinguishes them.... and their belief is indicative of God.. so using my standard of proof, i rest my case.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

You are seeking warranted assertability for the existence of god, not proof. I will grant this, as it is obvious that there is no conclusive proof either way.

>>"you're right that there could be explanations other than an intelligence that is causing all this (you could even insist if a wonder worker in fact came and started doing miracles in the name of God that there might be another explanation, analogous to a degree to show the obstenance of your position given that this stuff happens to theists)"

I'm not sure what Near Death Experiences (NDE's) have to do with the existence of god. NDE is far more likely a result of damage or unusual circumstances in the brain, rather than the influence of some deity.

>>"if people in gneeral had miracles etc then you'd have a point, but you don't have that. the evidence is in favor of theists, and hte presumption is in favor of them. "

Exactly - people in general DON'T have miracles. Nor do people on death beds. This evidence is AGAINST theists, and favors science. I'm not how you can argue that lack of miracles speaks in favor of theism.

>>"if the thing that distinguishes them is their belief... then at best you could simply insist that it could be their mind or something. but, when the distinguishing variable is their belief, that's not the most obvious explanation. atheists have the burden to rebut that presumption."

When the distinguishing variable is belief in the case of a NDE - that's yet MORE evidence against theism. If only theists interpret this phenomenon as a NDE or religious experience, then that simply supports the fact that it is religious conditioning warping their opinion, rather than an actual experience of a deity. Atheists are under no obligation to refute the claims of science.

>>"the most straightforward explanation is their belief itself distinguishes them.... and their belief is indicative of God.. so using my standard of proof, i rest my case."

This is a terrible argument. You argue that people's belief in God indicates his existence. Well what if I believe in unicorns? Does that indicate their existence? What if I believe in the NON-EXISTENCE of god? Does that indicate his non-existence?

Using your standard of proof as outlined in the last paragraph of your arguments, I submit that not only does god NOT exist simply because I believe it, but that unicorns, leprechauns, demons, the hydra, mythical monsters of all kinds, etc... all exist simply because I believe they do.

In all cases concerning evidence of god's existence, it is FAR more likely that there is a logical explanation than that there is a mystical deity undetectable by science.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

this is one of the worst responses i've seen.

but, i think you mean well. and even though you claim to be detached as agnostic, i think it's showing that you're not detached to your posistion by your responses as an objective person should be.

NDE's have to do with God because that's what they often show. by far most say that.
also... there's pretty conclusive proof that there's more to it than brain damage. there's studies that show they hear and see things when their body was clinically dead. to try to rationalize this as neurons firing in the brain is just that... rationalizing against the most apparent and obvious explanation.
conclusive proof means proponderance means i've proven my case in a court of law.
NDE's scream of God in their message. to say other wise is being an ostrich with your head in the sand.
http://www.near-death.com...

********
>>"if people in gneeral had miracles etc then you'd have a point, but you don't have that. the evidence is in favor of theists, and hte presumption is in favor of them. "
Exactly - people in general DON'T have miracles. Nor do people on death beds. This evidence is AGAINST theists, and favors science. I'm not how you can argue that lack of miracles speaks in favor of theism.
***************

please reread what i wronte in the context of it all. if people generally don't have them... but theists do... it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see there's something to being a theist.
now, you may have an argument it's not God.. but you have to admit your response makes no sense in response to mine.

*************8
>>"if the thing that distinguishes them is their belief... then at best you could simply insist that it could be their mind or something. but, when the distinguishing variable is their belief, that's not the most obvious explanation. atheists have the burden to rebut that presumption."
When the distinguishing variable is belief in the case of a NDE - that's yet MORE evidence against theism. If only theists interpret this phenomenon as a NDE or religious experience, then that simply supports the fact that it is religious conditioning warping their opinion, rather than an actual experience of a deity. Atheists are under no obligation to refute the claims of science.
**************************

again please reread my post. if atheists convert after NDEs far and away, that's not only theists experiencing it... and it's not them walking away believing it.
athesits are to refute the fact that atheists convert... and as i said before, things that happen solely to them like miralces doesn't happen to others.
and if the evidence is in their favor for NDEs, they have a burden to rebut.

***********************
>>"the most straightforward explanation is their belief itself distinguishes them.... and their belief is indicative of God.. so using my standard of proof, i rest my case."
This is a terrible argument. You argue that people's belief in God indicates his existence. Well what if I believe in unicorns? Does that indicate their existence? What if I believe in the NON-EXISTENCE of god? Does that indicate his non-existence?
Using your standard of proof as outlined in the last paragraph of your arguments, I submit that not only does god NOT exist simply because I believe it, but that unicorns, leprechauns, demons, the hydra, mythical monsters of all kinds, etc... all exist simply because I believe they do.
****************

you are not comparing apples to applies.
if you believe in unicorns, and miracles happened to you, then you'd have an argument that there might be something to unicorns.
but, you don't have that.
theists do have that stuff, and evidence in their favor.
to try to deny it is not the most reasonable position.
as a jury person, you could deny it as it's not deductive.... but you're the one who's trying ot rationalize.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

>>"to try to rationalize this as neurons firing in the brain is just that... rationalizing against the most apparent and obvious explanation."

Neurons firing in the brain is a verifiable scientific phenomena. There are several studies, including one publised in Popular Science not too long ago that not only deal with the fact that NDE can be induced by a magnetic field (http://www.erowid.org...), but also the fact that brain chemistry plays a HUGE role in the production of experiences that are described as abnormal or spiritual (http://meta-religion.com...). In addition, the article in PopSci discussed the fact that there is a lobe of the brain that activates when people believe they're having a religious experience WHETHER OR NOT IT IS REAL OR INDUCED. It seems to me that concluding scientific phenomena is the work of god is rationalization. ESPECIALLY given any sort of religious conditioning in the patient. NDE screams of damage to the brain - science can explain most of what causes NDE. To conclude it is god is to make an unwarranted assumption because of religious conditioning.

>>"if people generally don't have them... but theists do... it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see there's something to being a theist."

Only a theist would consider them miracles! Many things are really contingent coincidences. Consider the case where a child wanders onto a railroad crossing and gets his shoe caught in the rail gap there at the crossing. The track is curved such that the conductor couldn't apply the brakes in time to stop the train if he did so immediately upon seeing the child. The child is stuck... the train rumble and whistle is heard... the mother screeches... the train stops inches from the child. Miracle, right? No - we learn the operator fainted because his blood pressure was too low and the train automatically applied the brake when the operator ceased holding the controls. It just so happened that the brakes were applied in time to spare the child. NOT a miracle. But a theist will still consider it so, possibly even when learning about the contingencies concerning the operator. Qualitatively, the only thing being a theist changes is the propensity to see "miracles" where there are none.

>>"if atheists convert after NDEs far and away, that's not only theists experiencing it... and it's not them walking away believing it.
athesits are to refute the fact that atheists convert... and as i said before, things that happen solely to them like miralces doesn't happen to others.
and if the evidence is in their favor for NDEs, they have a burden to rebut. "

This makes no sense - you say that it's "not only theists experiencing it [NDE's]" and then immediately after is say that "things that happen solely to them like miralces doesn't happen to others." That's blatantly contradictory. Make up your mind here. The atheist is under no obligation to re-explain science to the theist. The science is there - the theist simply chooses to see god where there is no verifiable evidence that it IS god. But there IS verifiable evidence that has a scientific explanation.

>>"if you believe in unicorns, and miracles happened to you, then you'd have an argument that there might be something to unicorns. but, you don't have that.
theists do have that stuff, and evidence in their favor. "

But miracles don't happen to me. They don't happen to theists either - theists simply choose to see them because they fancy the idea that they're right about god. Theists have their misguided notion of what a miracle is, and evidence that favors science.

**********************

Actually, in the grand scope of things, it is theists who try to rationalize. There is no excuse for a move to attribute phenomena to a deity when the same phenomena can be explained by science. Just as it would be ridiculous to attribute the phenomenon of gravity to god, it is ridiculous to attribute the neurochemical and biological idiosyncrasies of a dying brain to god.

As far as this source (http://www.near-death.com...) goes, a little surfing around their site unearths both that the site is CLEARLY geared towards theists and people who want to believe that NDE is god at work. Also, their evidence is testimony and interpretations, not scientific data...
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

http://www.nderf.org...

that site is a little more fact specific than the last one i cited.
but, the last one i cited was not lacking. if people share NDEs and later reaffirm it in person... or can see things when they are dead, that is not due to the brain firing oddly. that explanation doesn't explain things like this.
witness accounts like in court have some credibility, and these are credible people doing objective things that are inexcplicable.

also... your links about NDE's has been debated before:
http://www.nderf.com...

basically, the results of the lobe stimulation simulated some effects similar to NDEs, but nothing concrete and very rarely... nothing like a full blown experirenece and more like feeling detached from yourself.

it seems like you're trying your hardest to avoid what's the most apparent explanations with obscure studies that don't hold up upon scrutiny... just vague ideas like "there must be another explanation...."

also... as for miracles... it's not just in people's imaginations. most creditble and famous atheists i know, like richard dawkins, do not dispute that they occur. they claim other explanations though.
http://macroevolution.narod.ru... here's his book. he doesn't explain miracles adequately at all. he sort of hops around it.
i'd recommend wikipeida "miracles"... do some research on the congregation for the causes of the saints.. etc.
basically, the only thing you could argue, is that miracle looking things happen to athestis etc. which would require that you actually provide data. i've never seen a comprehenstive study on this. so, i'd guess you have nothing. but if you do, i'm all ears and that's why i'm here.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

>>"(http://www.nderf.com...) that site is a little more fact specific than the last one i cited.
but, the last one i cited was not lacking. if people share NDEs and later reaffirm it in person... or can see things when they are dead, that is not due to the brain firing oddly. that explanation doesn't explain things like this."

That site is a forum. None of the people that post there are scientists. That's not a reliable source. Granted, I'm not a scientist either, but I'm not arguing content - I'm arguing format. They present their interpretations of things, and science gives us hard data. It doesn't surprise me at all that people have their NDE's verified by people in the room. Their body is still there, and as long as none of the parts are physically disconnected, then there's definitely a possibility that the electrical portions of the brain are still working.

Which is more likely? That there is a problem with people's brains as they are dying that makes them loose consciousness while the brain keeps functioning, albeit improperly due to some sort of damage... or that they're actually encountering some kind of deity. That's not a hard question to answer - it's EXTRAORDINARILY more likely that there is something wrong with their brain.

>>"basically, the results of the lobe stimulation simulated some effects similar to NDEs, but nothing concrete and very rarely... nothing like a full blown experirenece and more like feeling detached from yourself."

I'm puzzled why you keep bringing up people rambling on a forum, interpreting the words from other people talking about studies they didn't do. This has gone through 2 levels of religious conditioning - of course it seems to represent NDE's a valid religious experiences.

The fact is that Temporal Lobe Epilepsy can produce a OBE or NDE without any sort of mystical explanation. Science tells us that there is a malfunction in the brain at the same time as these people are having their religious experiences (http://www.bbc.co.uk...). Science can also verify that the portion on the brain that governs spacial recognition and associated consciousness is less active while people believe they're undergoing a religious experience (http://neurophilosophy.wordpress.com...). This is not hard to understand at all. There are chemicals and processes in the brain that make people believe they're having religious experiences.

>>"also... as for miracles... it's not just in people's imaginations. most creditble and famous atheists i know, like richard dawkins, do not dispute that they occur. they claim other explanations though. basically, the only thing you could argue, is that miracle looking things happen to athestis etc. which would require that you actually provide data."

This is ridiculous - I already explained the most common "miracle" - the contingency miracle. If atheists "claim other explanations" then what are theists doing? They are "claim[ing] other explanations." The notion that an atheist is under a burden to disprove religion is ridiculous. Religion is under burden to disprove science, ESPECIALLY in the case of contingency miracles.

Atheists do not dispute that the events a theist sees as miraculous occur. They simply choose the logical explanation over the illogical one. And the second part of your argument here - "...that miracle looking things happen to atheists.." - is equally ridiculous. "Miracle looking things" happen to atheists all the time. They simply understand that there is a logical explanation. The theist automatically assumes god because they're been conditioned to do so. Once again - miracles are only miracles FOR theists.

Now, the other portion of the miracle idea, we'll call the violation concept (man, this sounds like Hume vs. Holloway or something...). This would be where a law of nature has been broken, such as someone rising from the dead or multiplying fish and loaves. However, we only have third-hand testimony of these events. It's simply illogical to assume that stories that are 2000 years old have been recorded correctly when none of the people that recorded them were actually eyewitnesses to the event. Much more logical to understand them as metaphorical or just simply false.

*******************************************

Now on top of all this, we still have a problem. Neither NDE (which are explainable by science and logic) nor miracles (which are again explainable by science and logic) constitutes proof, or even warranted assertability for the existence of god. You claimed in the first round to be seeking "preponderance of evidence, more likely than not, in a court of law." This suggests that one could introduce god as weighty evidence in this court of law. I have yet to see god included in any reasoning from any just court of law.

So in essence, we have neither proof of god's existence, nor proof of his non-existence. We are left with only reason or faith. Since reason is constant and provides verifiable results, and faith produces only hope in correctness, I submit that reason is of a higher order than faith. Reasoning a bridge is sturdy enough to cross based on calculations and observations is much superior to simply having faith that it is sturdy, is it not?

When faced with the question of "what caused X?" we are forced to adopt faith or reason. Obviously, the more judicious move is to adopt reason. And this reason tells us nothing of god's existence. Even when we don't understand the cause of something, it is STILL more reasonable to suppose we simply don't have the technology than to attribute the cause to a deity. To do so is to embrace ignorance. Don't confuse that with stupidity... ignorance can be cured, but stupidity is forever. I for one will not embrace ignorance by simply ignoring reason for faith when reason provides more concrete answers than faith.

So... I submit that we have no cause to believe god's existence based on reason. Faith is not a valid form of gathering information about the external world. When one makes an existence claim such as "the tree exists," "that rock exists," or "god exists" one should do the exact same thing in all three cases - go look. Reason shows no tree is present. Reason shows no rock is present. Reason shows no god is present. Faith shows a tree is present... whoop-de-doo. The tree isn't there regardless of whether or not you have faith that it is.

And so it is with god until we have REASON to believe otherwise.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bobsatthepub 9 years ago
bobsatthepub
Oh... this is a joke, man I am slow on the uptake lately.
I really needed that extra hit of "huh?" to help me see the humor, thanks.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 9 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
and the debater continues to insist the links prove anything.... they haven't shown NDEs to occur by stimulating hte brain, they haven't even gotten close.

there's at best a connection there and a plausible alterantive. it's not the most obvious answer.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 9 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
even the debater in this thread still simply insists that miracle lookin things happen to athests. he hasn't shown me one case. he acnowledges 90% are from something other than miracles, so what does he say the other ten percent are?
i think he knows that there's something to this.
if there's something to this... why not assume it's God, since that's the apprent variable affecting them? the only way he could dispute this is to say that that same 10 percent happens to theists, but he has no proof.... he doesn't even have proof of the other 90 percent, so he can't have proof of that 10 percent.

doctafly is incapable of intelligent debate. he hasn't responded to my arguments. ad hominem is all he's capable of.
doctafly is an idiot. i'd respond to his points if he had any.
Posted by DoctaFly 9 years ago
DoctaFly
I repeat: This is thee most lopsided debate on this website. The pro-god religious zealot is using smoke and mirrors to debate substantiated fact. Typical. And Sad.

These are the same types of superstitious nutjobs who believe 18 people shot at Jack Kennedy from 29 different locations. Reality does not factor into everyday life for such individuals.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 9 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>>"notice his last post... he doesn't even rebut the NDE facts. he again just finds vague studies that stimulate the brain and make feelings of detachment and euphoria. that at best indicates it might be the brain."

I guess you didn't read the studies that describe exactly the same phenomenon that NDE claims to describe...

>>"as for miracles... he simply asserts without evidence that miracle looking things happen to atheits."

Hello? The train example is what 90% of so-called-miracles are. They happen to EVERYONE. Only theists experience miracles because atheists choose a logical explanation.

>>"i'm not saying i'm proving deductively that God exists. but i've got plenty of evidence."

Ah yes... well if you have plenty of evidence, why didn't you present it in the debate?
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
I'm jealous. Dairygirl's argument is slightly less inane in this debate than in mine.
Posted by bobsatthepub 9 years ago
bobsatthepub
are you more then one person? Because I could swear that didn't make one bit of sense.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 9 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
i am not a religous zealot.
to see the evidence and try to rationalize it is actually being zealot. doctafly is a zealot.
notice his last post... he doesn't even rebut the NDE facts. he again just finds vague studies that stimulate the brain and make feelings of detachment and euphoria.
that at best indicates it might be the brain.
the most reasonable explantion is always the most obvious.... it's staring you in the face and you choose to reject it.

as for miracles... he simply asserts without evidence that miracle looking things happen to atheits. i've never seen this. he hasn't shown it. he simply assumes. he's wrong.
that miracle looking things happen to theists is well documented. and i could go on and tell the compelling story of my friend too.

you guys are ostrichs with your head in the sand.

i'm not saying i'm proving deductively that God exists. but i've got plenty of evidence. as a jury member you could disagree. but the case is compelling.
Posted by DoctaFly 9 years ago
DoctaFly
This is thee most lopsided debate on this website. The pro-god religious zealot is using smoke and mirrors to debate substantiated fact. Typical. And Sad.
Posted by bobsatthepub 9 years ago
bobsatthepub
"Only a theist would consider them miracles!"
bang
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
dairygirl4u2cJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
dairygirl4u2cJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
dairygirl4u2cJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
dairygirl4u2cJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by jiffy 9 years ago
jiffy
dairygirl4u2cJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 
Vote Placed by flor 9 years ago
flor
dairygirl4u2cJustCallMeTarzanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by YummyYummCupcake 9 years ago
YummyYummCupcake
dairygirl4u2cJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 
Vote Placed by mrmatt505 9 years ago
mrmatt505
dairygirl4u2cJustCallMeTarzanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by pazmusik 9 years ago
pazmusik
dairygirl4u2cJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
dairygirl4u2cJustCallMeTarzanTied
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