The Instigator
TheMaster_Debator
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
18Karl
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

God(s) existence

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 2 votes the winner is...
18Karl
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 737 times Debate No: 70393
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

TheMaster_Debator

Pro

In this debate we will be arguing God's existence. I am going to try to prove the possibility of God's existence, and you (the con) will try to prove that it is simply not possible for God to exist.

Round 1: acceptance only
Round 2: opening argument(s)
Round 3: more argument(s)
Round 4: more argument(s)
Round 5: closing (NO more arguments, keep this one under 250 words please)

*Note: let's try to keep our arguments somewhat short and sweet, it makes it way easier for the voters at the very end. I still allowed 8,000 character arguments, this is only optional.
18Karl

Con

Best of luck! ;)
Debate Round No. 1
TheMaster_Debator

Pro

ARGUMENT ONE (light and time):

For starters, who is God?
In this debate I will be referring to the Christian God (or the the God of Muslims and Jews as well). I will be using the Bible for my arguments. So let's begin by defining who God is.

"God is light..." 1 John 1:5

"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:8

So from these passages listed above we know God is light, and that God is not affected by time, but in order for me to explain my point I need to explain some physics of light.

As you speed up, time begins to "slow down." This was first discovered when atomic clocks were placed in jets and flown around the world at different speeds. Scientists discovered that as your speed increases time slows down. This is exponential, not linear. I have a link to the graph down below. In theory, plane pilots age slightly slower than us here on the ground. Like I said before though, just slightly slower because as speed increases time "dilates" exponentially. When you hit the speed of light, time will actually stop for the outside world. If you beat the speed of light (which according to physics is not possible) you will actually go back in time, according to the theory.

http://upload.wikimedia.org...

This theory was first suggested by Einstein, who ironically believed in the same God as me. Albert Einstein was a genius, a believer in God, and TIMES magazine person of the century. Here is an image of the Einstein quote, I just thought it was pretty cool so I decided to add it.

http://images.summitpost.org...

So you might understand where I am going with this. Physics prove that it is possible for God to exist. Light is "outside" of time. God is outside of time. God is light. Because of the fact that God is light, he has that ability to be outside of time.

ARGUMENT TWO (miracles):

There are thousand's of miracles recorded throughout church history. I am going to use modern miracles, performed in the last 100 years. Before I begin I am going to explain to you what the Vatican medical advisory is. Basically, some of the smartest doctors, scientists, and philosophers around the world are a part of this team. They advise the pope about world affairs, medical miracles, and politics. They have won several Nobel Prizes.

The reputed miracle involves the unexplained recovery of James Fulton Engstrom, a boy born apparently stillborn in September 2010 to Bonnie and Travis Engstrom of the Peoria-area town of Goodfield. He showed no signs of life as medical professionals tried to revive him. The child"s mother and father prayed to Archbishop Sheen to heal their son.
Although the baby showed no pulse for an hour after his birth, his heart started beating again and he escaped serious medical problems. The Vatican"s medical advisory panel ruled that there is no medical explanation for the healing of the baby.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com...

Miracles from France and Costa Rica helped Pope John Paul II blaze the fastest path to sainthood in the history of the Catholic church.While some wait decades -- even centuries -- to break into the major leagues of sainthood, the Polish-born pontiff, who died in 2005, will be canonized in record time on Sunday after the Vatican identified two miracles they said are the result of John Paul II's intercession. French nun Marie Simon Pierre, 47, said her symptoms of Parkinson's disease went away after she prayed to the Pope John Paul II three months after his death from the same affliction.

http://abcnews.go.com...
18Karl

Con

FRAMEWORK:

We have seen two contradictions of terms here. The opposition states that he "will be referring to the Christian God", but says later that "this thoery was first suggested by Einstein, who ironically believed in the same God as me". Einstein was most definitely hostile of religion, and did not believe in the Christian God. He believed in Spinoza's God-one and the same with nature. For the sake of this debate, I shall define God as the typical Christian God, the "perfect omnipotent, extra-universal benevolent deity who knows all and cares about us". This is a common sensical definition. We shall then define existence (in order to stay away from the metaphysical blabber of ontology) as "having an objective reality".

The BoP lies on the opposition solely. The negation of all of his arguments would easily mean a Con-ballot.

REFUTATIONS:

1. John 1:5, Time Dilation

I shall refute the opposition's position on this on three grounds: one on merely logical grounds, another on theological basis, and the last on the mere content of his argument. On a merely logical grounds, "God exists because "light is "outside" of time. God is outside of time. God is light." Anyone with any inkling in Aristotelian logic will tell you that this is wholly false upon a logical analysis of the three premises. For we are saying: "All unicorns are white, all Causcasian men are white, henceforth all Causcasian men are unicorns". The first two premises are true, but the conclusion is clearly false. "I refute it thus" (as Samuel Johnson used to say). Upon this, there is no grounds on the opposition's John 1:5 arguments being proven sound. [1]

But even if the opposition's premises were valid, the interpretation of John 1:5 is wholly absurd and inaccurate. Commentaries on this passage have shown that it is supposed to be intepreted in a more metaphorical and ethical sense. The commentaries of Matthew Henry states that "the great God should be represented to this dark world, as pure and perfect light.... as his doctrines and precepts must be such". P05;τι P01; ΘεP56;ς φQ82;ς O52;στ^3;] φQ82;ς (the passage in Greek) clearly shows that "God’s nature is light = absolute holiness and truth". Even through the context of the message, "God is light" was never supposed to be taken literally. For John 1:6 states that "if we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth". Henceforth, light here is supposed to be an allusion to the enlightening values of God and how he represents the "truth". (Genesis should also be taken into consideration. It is said that God created light-hence, light is an attribute of God) [2,3]

On a side note, this is a normal "God of the Gaps" situation. We have no obligation, no sufficient reason (in Leibnizean terms) to say that because God is light (and the reverse) that God actually cares about us. If God is light, he is omnipresent-which makes God present when universes die, or when Freud healed Anna O. However, that gives us no justification for us to believe that God cares about what we do.

Nevertheless, on to time dilation. Time dilation is a much more complicated theory and has much more complicated philosophical implications that what anyone might think. Upon the postulate that "light is attracted to heavier objects", time can be slown down by being next to heavy objects. This postulates indeed that light is beyond time (light is not matter). However, this proves nothing-for even if light is beyond time, then where does God enter the picture? Why do we have to attribute anything beyond space and time to this thing called God? It is neither analytical nor synthetical. But let us postulate, with the help of Kantian terminology, that God exists outside space and time. Then doesn't that make God "noumena" (thing-in-itself)? We can never perceive "noumena" so to say-hence, how do we perceive God? Our perception of God says that God must be within "space and time". Light can be outside space and time, but light we know is in space-time. Why can we not say the same thing about God? If He is outside space and time, then we cannot conceive of him. [4]

2. Miracles

I will not refute the individual examples of miracles, but refute the methodological usage of them to prove the existence of God. If the Christian God truly does exist, then why did he cause miracles in the "pagan" temples of India (where there are numerous instances of statues of pagan Gods "drinking" milk)? Why was Pythagoras seen in two different places at one time in Ancient Greece? What basis is their for an objective existence of the Christian God when miracles happens everywhere? [5,6]

And even if miracles did happen, why are they so rare? Why is the omnipotent God unable to feed millions of kids in Africa? What did the "Lord Almighty" do to prevent the citizens of Mosul (Christians) who were killed when ISIS captured the city? Some might say "it was because of sin" and all, but why were those affiliated with pedophilia given miracles, and not those who sincerely pray in Iraqi Christian cities, who were massacred by IS?

These honest question begs the point-the expectations of the Lord Almighty would be much more grand than healing a single kid. Why can He not give us a cure for cancer, or at least, the perfect form of governance? Why can God not provide us with a better world-why are his miracles singular cases of healings? This either shows that God is wholly limited in his power, or that he doesn't care about the evil in this world-both contradicts the definition of God.

For the sake of my own satisfaction, I shall produce one positive argument in the negation of God's existence.

ARGUMENT FROM IMPERFECTION

P1. The world is imperfect
P2. God is perfect
P3. Existence pertains to the existence in this world
P4. If God exists, then it denies his perfection, which via P2 is absurd
C. Henceforth, God does not exist

The defense of P1 is simple-we can imagine a better world. This world is definitely not perfect. P2 is analytical from the definition of God. P3 is also anlaytical from the definition of exsitence. P4 needs defending-if God exists, then, He would necessarily exist in a world with huge suffering-with cancer, Huntington's Disease, heart diseases, self-destructing planets etc. If God is a wholly perfect creature, God's existence in this world would ultimately mean that He is imperfect, for it would mean that through His omnipotence, He is still unable to stop the planets from exploding. The conclusion neccesarily follows.

I consider the resolution negated


CITATION

[1] http://faculty.bsc.edu...
[2] http://biblehub.com...
[3] http://biblehub.com...
[4] http://www.iep.utm.edu...
[5] https://www.youtube.com...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...



Debate Round No. 2
TheMaster_Debator

Pro

I will be quoting your previous argument:

"ARGUMENT FROM IMPERFECTION

P1. The world is imperfect
P2. God is perfect
P3. Existence pertains to the existence in this world
P4. If God exists, then it denies his perfection, which via P2 is absurd
C. Henceforth, God does not exist"

This in itself is totally false. God said 7 times in Genesis he created a good world, not a perfect world. The reason why Christian's believe the world has imperfection is because of Original Sin. Basically when we choose to be cruel to each other, ignore each other's issues, and cause violence we are creating imperfections in our world.

Argument 3: Cell Theory Laws
I will be basing my next argument off of scientific facts of cells. The three laws of the cell theory are:
1. All living things are composed of cells
2. Cells are the basic unit of structure and function in living things
3. Cells are only made from other existing cells

I will be focusing on the 3rd law of the cell theory. Cells are only made from other existing cells. This is science, and science is fact. You are basing your arguments off of sciene, just like most atheists I have argued.

Argument 4: Richard Dawkins
"The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice." -Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins is a genius, but you probably know that, right? He studies evolution, debates on live TV (and wins for the most part), and is a professor. But even this man is left in wonder and awe when thinking about the probability of the universe coming together the way it did. Well he is right. Read this article segment below where a scientist and blogger tried calculating the odds of atoms colliding and forming life. Here is the link: http://www.science20.com...

For the purposes of today"s column I will go through the probability calculation that a specific ribozyme might assemble by chance. Prof. Harold Morowitz estimated that the simplest theoretically conceivable living organism would have to possess a minimum of 124 different protein molecules. A rough estimate of the probability of all of these protein molecules to be formed by chance in a single chance happening would be P124P = (1/1065)124 = 1/10^8060, the fraction 1 divided by the number 1 followed by 8060 zeros.

So the approximate odds of life forming are 1 in 4^300, and very large number, but sadly he did not calculate the odds of this life forming on a planet that can sustain life. So let's figure out the odds of that ribozyme forming on planet earth. So, as far as we can tell by the visible universe, earth makes up approximantly 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003 % of the universe. (once again VISIBLE universe, there is so much we haven't seen so the actual number would be even smaller than this) So the odds are 1 in 3 * 10^60.

The final probability of life forming by chance on planet earth would be 1 in 3 * 10 ^ 8120.
Just for comparison, there are about 10^82 atoms in the known universe.

My conclusion, the odds of life forming are too great to be an accident, there had to have been a creator. The odds are too great for this to happen.

Note: "^" means exponent.

Here is my source http://www.parentcompany.com...

Argument 5: Physics

I will try to keep this argument short and sweet. The laws of the universe shouldn't be obeyed. Why should an apple fall from a tree? Newton told us, "gravity!" and he is right, but why should the universe have to obey laws of gravity? Why should light always travel at the same speed? The answer is simple, something created the laws of the universe. I believe finding these "formulas" and "calculations" to things like gravity and speed of light and speed of sounds are cool, because that is as close as we can get to the handwriting of God.

Counter Argument:
"Einstein was most definitely hostile of religion, and did not believe in the Christian God"
Yes he did not believe in the Christian God, but he did believe in the God of the Torah (aka the Old Testament). That is the God I believe in, only I think the Christ was already sent down to earth 2000 years ago, when Einstein was still awaiting that savior. It's the same God, not the same Christ.
18Karl

Con

OBJECTIONS

DEFENSE OF ARGUMENT FROM PERFECTION

The opposition says that "God is not perfect, just all good." However, this is false on to basis: (a) he has accepted my definition of God as a being perfect, and (b) that accordingly to the Bible, God is all-perfect. In defense of (b), I shall direct you to a passage in the Bible that states that "He [God] is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he." (Deurotonomy 32:4). Hence, my assertion is still wholly asserted at this point.

REFUTATION OF THE RICHARD DAWKINS ARGUMENT

This is just a religious woo-ed version of the First Cause Argument, an argument in which I shall soon show to be of non-sense to the audience. The proof of this is simple argumentum ad ignoratum-just because life on earth has no other explanation, we should turn to God. This view, I believe, holds as much validity as saying that light originated from living creatures from "outer space". The fact is, we have life-so what?

From this assertion, the opposition presents us with an argument that states that since the probability of amino acids (AA) developing on Earth is 1 multiplied by 10^-130. However, the paper presents us with a question that is not answered. It is based upon the same logic (if used to prove) as the sophists. This is argumentum ad ignoratum. But before we go on, we must assert the following: life exists on Earth. Via this, let us revisit the findings of scientists. AA's development requires the following conditions: the existence of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen. These elements have been present since the beginning of the Earth. Apart from this, the earliest forms of life would have been single-cell organisms, concerned with only survival. The first cells were most definitely RNA cells. RNA cells create and synthesizes proteins. The article cited talks about the existence of AAs as being prior to the existence of the RNA cell. Albeit this seems likely, RNA cells probably multiplied the amount of RNA cells in existence. [1]

Based upon this, via a priori means, I shall also disprove the opposition's argument: if God was the "First Cause", then this provides no justification for Him to actually care about us. Furthermore, this is a non-sequitor. From the fact that everything must have a beginning, does not prove that God exists. The beginning might have been the Big Bang-we have no idea from what asserted right now.

REFUTATION OF THE ARGUMENTS FROM PHYSICS

This by no means proves anything but behind the scientific mumbo jumbo, there really is just a simplistic logic behind this. Something created the laws of the universe-yes, something did create the laws of the universe. So what? Where does God come in the picture? If God created the law of gravity, then boo-hoo on Him! Why did He create these laws? If we delete the mumbo jumbo and the ignoratio elenchi, then we are left with the following:

p1. There are natural laws which govern the universe
p2. All laws have a law giver
c1. That law giver is God

This is the argument in a nutshell. The first premise is already problematic for the following reason-it presupposes that natural laws are something prescriptive, not something descriptive. Natural laws describe our universe and it's action-this gives no presumption to the necessary existence of a being. The second premise is refuted by the first premise. Descriptive laws do not need a law-giver: it describes the existence of something. For example, philosophy has (finally) all agreed with one point: that we exist. This is a descriptive law. Who made it? No one did. It describes human ontology. However, prescriptive laws need a law-giver: "do not kill" is an example of one of them. The third premise does not follow logically-if we take our current definition of God, then we see no basis to attribute Him to this. Apart from this, why did God create these laws? What were his reasons? These laws limit-are you saying that God has the abilities to break them? Then why did He create them in the first place? Either natural laws can be broken by God (why did He create them?) or God is not Omnipotent (absurd). [2]

REFUTATION FO CELL THEORY ARGUMENTS


    1. All known living things are made up of one or more cells

    1. All living cells arise from pre-existing cells by division.

    1. The cell is the fundamental unit of structure and function in all living organisms.

    1. The activity of an organism depends on the total activity of independent cells.

    1. Energy flow (metabolism and biochemistry) occurs within cells.

    1. Cells contain DNA which is found specifically in the chromosome and RNA found in the cell nucleus and cytoplasm.

    1. All cells are basically the same in chemical composition in organisms of similar species .


This is the modern intepretation of the Cell Theory. The Second Law (OI third law) shall be examined. Here, what is meant by this is that all cells arise from a pre-existing cell. However, via the same logic as the opposition's First Cause thoughts, the first cell had to be created from nothing. On Earth, the first cell was most probably created when ligtning and the heating of sea water both synthesized, allowing for the cell to live. But even if did God did put the cell on Earth (which is yet to be affirmed), we are soon left with the following things to prove: that this God cares about us, and that He is Omnipotent, All-Knowing etc. This then turns the opp.'s arguments into mere argumentum ad ignoratum. [4]

REFUTATION: Einstein was a Theist

Einstein was a Pantheist for sure. "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." Spinoza's God is not the Christian God. Spinoza's God is infinite, but not omnipotent. Spinoza's God is beautiful, but not perfect. Einstein acknowledged this. "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. " Pantheism is one of the more emotional atheistic refutations of theism. The universe is God. God is one, and all. No divisions-no Jesus Christ, no revelations whatsoever. Einstein's God was a God that we were part of-an omnipresent beautiful substance, whom we will always wonder about. [3]
Debate Round No. 3
TheMaster_Debator

Pro

I am going to argue next that it is impossible to prove God doesn't exist, I set this trap up from the beginning. You can only prove God doesn't exist as much as I can prove that Santa doesnt exist. You can't prove that something doesn't exist.

My 1st Counter Argument:

"This by no means proves anything but behind the scientific mumbo jumbo, there really is just a simplistic logic behind this. Something created the laws of the universe-yes, something did create the laws of the universe. So what? Where does God come in the picture? If God created the law of gravity, then boo-hoo on Him! Why did He create these laws?"

That's what I am saying. By no means should the laws of the universe exist, every single atom in the universe shouldn't have to obey these laws. Your argument was basically just restating what I just said in question form. This isn't the first time you have done a counter argument by just restating what I said as a question. You argument is invalid.

My 2nd Counter Argument:

The opposition says that "God is not perfect, just all good." However, this is false on to basis: (a) he has accepted my definition of God as a being perfect, and (b) that accordingly to the Bible, God is all-perfect. In defense of (b), I shall direct you to a passage in the Bible that states that "He [God] is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he." (Deurotonomy 32:4). Hence, my assertion is still wholly asserted at this point.

Okay not to be a grammar Nazi but you spelt Deuteronomy wrong. Anyways, I never said that "God is not perfect, just all good." I am saying that what God created was good. He created humans, and they were perfect. He created the earth, and it was perfect (especially for sustaining life). All of that changed after Original Sin, as Christians teach it. Original Sin caused humans to begin to hate, to desire, to have lust. Original Sin brought evil into the world. Please understand the Christian faith before you make arguments against it based on opinions.

My 3rd Counter Argument:

"From this assertion, the opposition presents us with an argument that states that since the probability of amino acids (AA) developing on Earth is 1 multiplied by 10^-130."

That's not the number I gave you. The actual figure is 1 in 3 * 10 ^ 8120, but yeah whatever you can shrink that number. One again just for comparison the number of atoms in the known universe is about 10 ^ 82.

Argument 6: The Bible

Now I know I have hardly used the Bible so far in my arguments. I mainly based my arguments off of science, so I found this great article and felt like sharing.

The Bible itself is proof of God"s existence because He used 40 unrelated people over a period of 2,000 years to write His unique love letter to us. There is nothing like the Bible because it carries the same consistent message throughout all of its 66 different books. Atheists can laugh at this idea, but those who have read the Scriptures and experienced God through its pages know why it is the best-selling and most-translated book in all of history. (Fact: 100 million copies of the Bible are sold every year. Richard Dawkins" The God Delusion has sold 2 million.)
http://www.charismanews.com...

Argument 7: The Vast Number of Miracles

I am going to keep this argument short and sweet, and it is pretty much self explanatory. Many recorded medical, psychological, and physical miracles are recorded every year. Now I know some of them are totally impractical. Like for example, when a Christian says, "My child was a miracle of God." When in all reality it was a result of her sex. I am talking about the many miracles we hear about every year. Each Saint needs at least 2 miracles performed in their name to be canonized. There are over 10,000 named saints. Do the math.
18Karl

Con

REFUTATION

1.) You cannot prove that God doesn't exist

What are you trying to say here? What trap? Of course, I cannot prove that something isn't existent. It is a rule of logic: you never prove a negative. However, you simply refute what the opposition has to say: is the opp. saying that we cannot prove that God exists? This is an argument which would easily make a Con-ballot. The opposition has shown here that he is unwilling to debate this issue further. He is claiming that since one cannot prove a negative (one can merely refute the points made in support of the positive), that this argument is not defensible on the Con-side. So what? Either the statement cannot be proven (a Con-ballot) or BoP lies on Pro to prove the existence of a God.

2.) Invalidation of Argument from Physics

This argument is still wholly supported: the opposition has taken an excerpt of the questions (that no answers have been provided to) and simply stated that my argument is invalidated. The opposition seems to be cherry-picking my case. By no way was that the whole essence of my case. I go on to describe prescriptive and descriptive laws. Where is this to be seen in the refutation of my case? And even if I were to take the assumption that questions are invalid, I can easily assert that the opposition's case does not prove a single thing. For " Newton told us, "gravity!" and he is right, but why should the universe have to obey laws of gravity?" is simply a "handwriting of God". What proof? There is no essence in affirming the existence of God with that argument. Perhaps the opp. should thank me-I gave his argument essence.

3.) Objection to CA2

The opposition says that God's creation is all-good, and original sin corrupted it. How does this conclusion refute my argument from perfection? Again, the opposition throws ad hominem attacks on me for not understanding the Christian faith. However, this debate has barely anything to do with Christianity. We are talking about the monotheistic God, as outlined in R1. Hence, apart from being a mere (baseless) ad hominem, his conclusion (led via ad hominem, hence clearly invalid) is pure ignoratio elenchi.

4.) Objection to CA3

Quoting from the source of the Opp.: "It is the fraction formed by the number 1 divided by the number formed by 1 followed by 130 zeros!" I see no refutation of this argument. All my points have been affirmed: it is pure argumentum ad ignoratum. Just because it is unlikely, doesn't mean that there must be a pre-existing cause.

5.) Objection to A6

This is the most absurd, unsound, irrelevant and invalid argument that this debate has seen. The Bible does not prove anything-if it is truly a "love letter" from God to humanity, then it is perhaps not much differing from Sonnet 130 written be Shakespeare, which states: "And in some perfumes is there more delight, Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks." I love this love letter-it is a pessimistic view of love. The Bible represents a pessimistic view of human life. If God truly intended the Bible as a "love letter", then why would He say "“Cursed is the ground because of you: through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food, until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” (Genesis 2:4-3:24) God hates humans. ""Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal, I hated them there. Because of their sinful deeds, I will drive them out of my house. I will no longer love them; all their leaders are rebellious." (Hosea 9:15) (and does it annoy the opp. that Harry Potter, a better written novel than the Bible in my opinion, sold more than 100 million copies?) What significance does the Bible have? In this debate, nothing. Nothing at all. The Bible does not give direct proof of God-actually, it gives no proof of God whatsoever. By proof, I mean a rational argument for the existence of God-the Bible fails to prove it.

6.) Argument from Miracles

There is a simple attack needed on this: who did it? Why were the Pagan philosophers of Athens, who believed in idols, given miracles which allowed them to be seen at two places at the same time? How about the Hindus, whose paganistic prayers were believed to have given them good grades? Even a simple Buddhist like me experiences this-why is it that I, an unbeliever, experience so many miracles in my life? Who did it?

And even if miracles were proven to be true, this does not prove that God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. For such a God would clearly be able to give food to the starving Africans in Africa. He would have also been capable of saving His sons from the wrath of the "idol worshippers" during Iraq's Northern Offensive, which killed millions of Christians. Why is it so that He is incapable of delivering huge miracles?


Again, nothing was proved. Nothing was denied. All my points remains affirmed. THE RESOLUTION IS NEGATED.

Debate Round No. 4
TheMaster_Debator

Pro

Final Argument: Wrap Up

"There is a simple attack needed on this: who did it? Why were the Pagan philosophers of Athens, who believed in idols, given miracles which allowed them to be seen at two places at the same time? How about the Hindus, whose paganistic prayers were believed to have given them good grades? Even a simple Buddhist like me experiences this-why is it that I, an unbeliever, experience so many miracles in my life? Who did it? "

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a desire and longing for God, and having faith can be enough to preform miracles. Because these people have faith, they are pleasing in God's eyes. Your argument has been negated.

"The Bible represents a pessimistic view of human life. If God truly intended the Bible as a "love letter", then why would He say ""Cursed is the ground because of you: through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food, until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."

I wanted to argue with this one too (even though this is my 3rd time explaining it in this debate). God gave us everything, and we turned away from Him (that is the Christian belief). Because we turned away from Him and broke our connection to Him, God decided to make us actually work to get to Heaven.

All in all, I think this was a great debate. I had a lot of fun debating with you. If you ever want to debate again please message me. I want to end my arguments with a quote.

"The Universe couldn't have come from nothing, you can't get something, from nothing."
18Karl

Con

FINAL REPLY SPEECH

The opp. has told you that the sheer amount of miracles in the world prove the existence of the Deity discussed in this debate. However, the opp. has disregarded the fact that Hindus and other Polytheists experience miracles too. The opp. has never refuted this point, and is henceforth left strong. Opp. has used the Bible as proof for God-the Bible's God. But the Bible gives no arguments, rational ones, for the existence of the "Lord Almighty", and if this God really existed, then humanity is in trouble. The opp. says that original sin is to be blamed, but this may be dismissed: we are talking about God (philosophy), not original sin (theology). The opp. has presented the arg. from physics in a manner so unpersuasive and lacking of essence that it contained no definitive/argumentative conclusion, and is merely nothing than the opposition's own opinion. The opp. has started by using science, but the grave misunderstanding of Cell Theory, Evolution, and the usage of argumentum ad ignoratum has rendered opp's deeds null. The argument from imperfection remains de facto unrefuted. Attempts at making this debate indiscussable have been dismissed. Ad hominems on me are discarded. The argument from God of Gaps are relatively lacking substance.

Now look at what Con. has asserted. BoP lies entirely on the opp. I have asserted that God's perfection is limited by this imperfect world. I have asserted that the Christian God's existence is not proven by arguing from First Cause, or any fallacious arguments. This is the underlying logic throughout the opp.'s case: we don't know. "But this book, this Bible tells us that God created it. It must be God. It cannot be anyone else". This logic is flawed. Lastly, I would like to ask the opp. a question if the universe couldn't have come from nothing: "what caused cause?"

THE MOTION IS NEGATED, VOTE CON

Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
=====================
SubUK's RFD also seems as if it voted for the wrong side: it voted Pro, but said the resolution was "negated."
=========================
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
=========================================================
SubUK. 3 points to Pro (arguments). Reason for removal: This RFD fails to explain *why* Pro was more convincing. It only says *that* Pro was more convincing and *that* Con was not convincing. There is no explanation of *why.*

Reasons for voting decision: The resolution has been negated. Pro failed to use science as a way to prove God.
=================================================================

--Bluesteel (Voting Issues Moderator)
Posted by 18Karl 1 year ago
18Karl
@SkepticalAlone: The debate had a BoP entirely on Pro.
Posted by 18Karl 1 year ago
18Karl
@SebUK: If the reso has been negated, then it is a con ballot, not a pro ballot.
Posted by TheMaster_Debator 1 year ago
TheMaster_Debator
Here to say that you posted that before we even posted on the second debate round and made our arguments.
Posted by ChadMaestro 2 years ago
ChadMaestro
Have to say the first argument is pretty terrible, and extremely hard to keep up with because new, irrelevant ideas are being introduced to back up an idea where it simply cannot be.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Skepticalone 1 year ago
Skepticalone
TheMaster_Debator18KarlTied
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: Since this was a debate over the existence of the Christian god, many of Pro's arguments simply do not back his case. (Argument 2, 3,4,5, and 7). Con refuted argument 1 pointing out the "light" as argued by Pro was out of context. Argument 6 was a fairly weak argument which Con refuted by pointing out the "Bible provides no rational argument for god". Con did a good job of refuting the irrelevant arguments (Ie., those not specifically related to the Christian god), but has only one positive argument against the Christian God: The argument from perfection. I went back and forth on this, but eventually I decided Con won this argument because of his quote from Deuteronomy, which I assume would have been referring to a time period after the original sin was introduced into the world. Overall arguments go to Con, but just barely. This debate had a shared burden, and I think Con may not have been aware since he invested most of his efforts to refutation instead of arguments.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year ago
9spaceking
TheMaster_Debator18KarlTied
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: I think pro's arguments were weak compared to 18karl's and he could not really prove god's existence. Thus, Con wins. Giving one extra point just in case the vote bomb is not removed in time.