The Instigator
qwzx
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DrewMcD
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

God vs athiesm

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
DrewMcD
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 607 times Debate No: 73613
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

qwzx

Pro

You will use the same arguments in our first debate. Ok?
DrewMcD

Con

I accept. However, I will also throw in a few new arguments, as you'll suspect you'll do the same. Let it be known that our previous debate we discussed the christian God, and that is what I plan to debate. Good luck

Since you want me to use the same argument from our first debate, here it is word for word:

It's hard for me to believe in something that has so many contradictions. Did you know that's Gods own definition contradicts itself? The definition of God in the Christian Bible is that he is
1.Super natural
2.Omnibenevolent
3.OmniPotent
4.Omniscient
I'll start off with the first one. Now, being supernatural means you are inmaterial, which means it can't be tested as in science you can only test material things. With that said, you couldn't prove for a supernatural being to be right or wrong since you can not test it. With that said, you say God is the higher power, while I say Zeus, and another one says a flying spaghetti monster. As ridiculous as that sounds, you can't prove one to be more right or wrong than any other one, therefore all 3 answers are equally valid.
The second one is God is Omnibenevolent or all good. Now let's use examples of horrible things: War, disease, natural disasters, almost anything bad you can think of. Now, do you think that is the work of God, or the devil? If you said God, that proves you disagree in the defintion of God. If you said it's the devil, you are also wrong. God says In Isaiah 45:7 KJV, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things". He says himself he creates evil, proving he is not all good, contradicting his own definition.
The next one is Omnipotent or all powerful. Now here's a question in which you've most likely heard before but stands true and proves my point. Can God create a boulder so big even he himself could not lift it? If you say God can, that proves he is not Omnipotent since he is not powerful enough to lift the Boulder, and if you say God can't them that proves he is not omnipotent as he could not create a boulder so big.
The last part of this definition is he is Omniscient or all knowing. If God knew everything, then he would know what you need or what you want, and therefore there should be no reason to pray for it.
Debate Round No. 1
qwzx

Pro

"I'll start off with the first one. Now, being supernatural means you are inmaterial, which means it can't be tested as in science you can only test material things. With that said, you couldn't prove for a supernatural being to be right or wrong since you can not test it. With that said, you say God is the higher power, while I say Zeus, and another one says a flying spaghetti monster. As ridiculous as that sounds, you can't prove one to be more right or wrong than any other one, therefore all 3 answers are equally valid."

-Numbers can also not be tested and are immaterial too! Unless Con disproves numbers then, his supernatural argument is invalid.

"The next one is Omnipotent or all powerful. Now here's a question in which you've most likely heard before but stands true and proves my point. Can God create a boulder so big even he himself could not lift it? If you say God can, that proves he is not Omnipotent since he is not powerful enough to lift the Boulder, and if you say God can't them that proves he is not omnipotent as he could not create a boulder so big."

-You began your arguments by stating that God is supernatural. Science and Human logic can only test natural things and not supernatural things. I see fault in your argument as you tried to contradict God using science and human logic in your Omnipotent argument. Your argument against God's Omnipotence has already been countered by your supernatural argument.

"The second one is God is Omnibenevolent or all good. Now let's use examples of horrible things: War, disease, natural disasters, almost anything bad you can think of. Now, do you think that is the work of God, or the devil? If you said God, that proves you disagree in the defintion of God. If you said it's the devil, you are also wrong. God says In Isaiah 45:7 KJV, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things". He says himself he creates evil, proving he is not all good, contradicting his own definition."

-God allowed evil in to the world (therefore "creating") because he gave humanity the right to choose instead of controlling Adam and Eve like puppets. Unless Con can justify the act of total control over someone then, dictatorships are justified but, until then, the Omni-Benevolence argument is invalid.

"The last part of this definition is he is Omniscient or all knowing. If God knew everything, then he would know what you need or what you want, and therefore there should be no reason to pray for it."

-Most parents already know what their children want so why do children still tell them what they want. How is telling God something that he already knows called a contradiction. Unless Con can prove that telling your parents (that already know what you want) is contradiction then, your omniscient argument remains invalid.

-As confusing as God is, you can't "disprove" God using your confusion.
DrewMcD

Con

Numbers are abstract concepts that we give value to. Supernatural is "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe"
Observable. If you tell me to write four, I would write the symbol 4. We can obverse that. Physics, cosmology,algebra, geometry, trig,calculus, all of these are forms of mathematics that show us how to observe numbers. We can't observe God.
http://i.word.com...

We can't test it, but it's a question. We can ask questions about supernatural beings. We can't put it in the test, but we can question it. Where do you go after you enter a blackhole? Is there life in space? Is there a species of animals that we have yet to discover? All these questions, yet we can't test them. Yet, we form theories about what the answer would be. So once again I ask:
Can God, an omnipotent being, create a boulder couldn't even he can't lift?
If he can, he is not omnipotent as he can't create a boulder that he can't lift.
If he can't, he is not omnipotent as he can't lift the boulder.

God shows total control by predetermination. He already knows what we are going to do before we are going to do it as he is omniscient. Therefore, he would know when terrorists would crash towers, he would know when Japanese naval and air forces would bomb a base, and he would know when a dictator would commit genocide against races he felt were inferior to him and would make them go through cruel concentration camps.

You can't disprove God(until the day we find all scientific evidence proving their isn't one). However the information I have presented shows how the existence of God is very unlikely. You can't disprove my viewpoint saying the universe came to be by the Big Bang is wrong.
Also, we can't disprove God because we can't test God, just like we can't Zeus or leprechauns or unicorns or big foot, ect.
Debate Round No. 2
qwzx

Pro

"Observable. If you tell me to write four, I would write the symbol 4. We can obverse that. Physics, cosmology,algebra, geometry, trig,calculus, all of these are forms of mathematics that show us how to observe numbers. We can't observe God."

-NO, you can observe the symbol FOR 4 but not the number itself.

We can't test it, but it's a question. We can ask questions about supernatural beings. We can't put it in the test, but we can question it. Where do you go after you enter a blackhole? Is there life in space? Is there a species of animals that we have yet to discover? All these questions, yet we can't test them. Yet, we form theories about what the answer would be.

What created the world without the existence of God?

-The Kalam Argument

The Arabic word kalam literally means "speech," but came to denote a certain type of philosophical theology"a type containing demonstrations that the world could not be infinitely old and must therefore have been created by God. This sort of demonstration has had a long and wide appeal among both Christians and Muslims. Its form is simple and straightforward.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being.

Grant the first premise. (Most people"outside of asylums and graduate schools would consider it not only true, but certainly and obviously true.)

Is the second premise true? Did the universe"the collection of all things bounded by space and time"begin to exist? This premise has recently received powerful support from natural science"from so-called Big Bang Cosmology. But there are philosophical arguments in its favor as well. Can an infinite task ever be done or completed? If, in order to reach a certain end, infinitely many steps had to precede it, could the end ever be reached? Of course not"not even in an infinite time. For an infinite time would be unending, just as the steps would be. In other words, no end would ever be reached. The task would"could"never be completed.

But what about the step just before the end? Could that point ever be reached? Well, if the task is really infinite, then an infinity of steps must also have preceded it. And therefore the step just before the end could also never be reached. But then neither could the step just before that one. In fact, no step in the sequence could be reached, because an infinity of steps must always have preceded any step; must always have been gone through one by one before it. The problem comes from supposing that an infinite sequence could ever reach, by temporal succession, any point at all.

Now if the universe never began, then it always was. If it always was, then it is infinitely old. If it is infinitely old, then an infinite amount of time would have to have elapsed before (say) today. And so an infinite number of days must have been completed"one day succeeding another, one bit of time being added to what went before"in order for the present day to arrive. But this exactly parallels the problem of an infinite task. If the present day has been reached, then the actually infinite sequence of history has reached this present point: in fact, has been completed up to this point"for at any present point the whole past must already have happened. But an infinite sequence of steps could never have reached this present point"or any point before it.

So, either the present day has not been reached, or the process of reaching it was not infinite. But obviously the present day has been reached. So the process of reaching it was not infinite. In other words, the universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being, a Creator.

Question 1: Christians believe they are going to live forever with God. So they believe the future will be endless. How come the past cannot also be endless?

Reply: The question really answers itself. Christians believe that their life with God will never end. That means it will never form an actually completed infinite series. In more technical language: an endless future is potentially"but never actually"infinite. This means that although the future will never cease to expand and increase, still its actual extent will always be finite. But that can only be true if all of created reality had a beginning.

Question 2: How do we know that the cause of the universe still exists? Maybe it started the universe going and then ceased to be.

Reply: Remember that we are seeking for a cause of spatio-temporal being. This cause created the entire universe of space and time. And space and time themselves must be part of that creation. So the cause cannot be another spatio-temporal being. (If it were, all the problems about infinite duration would arise once again.) It must somehow stand outside the limitations and constraints of space and time.

It is hard to understand how such a being could "cease" to be. We know how a being within the universe ceases to be: it comes in time to be fatally affected by some agency external to it. But this picture is proper to us, and to all beings limited in some way by space and time. A being not limited in these ways cannot "come" to be or "cease" to be. If it exists at all, it must exist eternally.

Question 3: But is this cause God"a he and not a mere it?

Reply: Suppose the cause of the universe has existed eternally. Suppose further that this cause is not personal: that it has given rise to the universe, not through any choice, but simply through its being. In that case it is hard to see how the universe could be anything but infinitely old, since all the conditions needed for the being of the universe would exist from all eternity. But the kalam argument has shown that the universe cannot be infinitely old. So the hypothesis of an eternal impersonal cause seems to lead to an inconsistency.

Is there a way out? Yes, if the universe is the result of a free personal choice. Then at least we have some way of seeing how an eternal cause could give rise to a temporally limited effect. Of course, the kalam argument does not prove everything Christians believe about God, but what proof does? Less than everything, however, is far from nothing. And the kalam argument proves something central to the Christian belief in God: that the universe is not eternal and without beginning; that there is a Maker of heaven and earth. And in doing so, it disproves the picture of the universe most atheists wish to maintain: self-sustaining matter, endlessly changing in endless time.

Remember-You can not apply logic to supernatural things. So God can lift the rock so heavy that he can't lift it.

Some Christian believers support Calvinism, which is theological system which includes a rather strict determinism. To use the words of the person you are quoting , Calvinists believe that God has a predetermined and unchangeable "plan." If they were right"that there is no freedom of choice, that there is no free will, we could argue that the universe is completely determined by God, which, one could argue, is not consistent with the quantum mechanical world, which is not deterministic. God does not strictly determine what happens. There are some things which are "random" and not predetermined.

I believe that, even if the Calvinists were right, then the argument of Con would not be correct. The fact remains, however, that he is not correct in his understanding of the Christian God. The correct biblical teaching is that reality is not all determined by God. God has given us free will. Like the physical universe, what happens to us is not completely determined by God. God has a plan, but the plan includes uncertainty"it is affected by human will. The physical universe has a kind of "free will," as measured by the uncertainty principle, and humans have a kind of spiritual/moral free will. If the Bible describes the human condition as not predetermined and the physical world is also not pre-determined, then how does this fellow"s argument hold? It does not. In fact, physical reality, with its non-predetermined reality is consistent with the spiritual and moral reality described by the Bible, in which human beings are free moral agents, with the ability to determine for ourselves what will happen in our own lives.

You can test the existence of Zeus by hiking up Mount Olympus and find that there is no Gods. Christian God is different though and is much more complex and confusing.

The Argument from Truth

1.Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being.
2.Truth properly resides in a mind.
3.But the human mind is not eternal.
4.Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside.
DrewMcD

Con

The symbol for four is four. The symbol 4 and the word four both have the same value and if I were to use it in a math problem such as 4-2 or four minus two I would get the same answer. What about words? We can't physically observe them but we can write them or speak them and they will have the same meaning. Are you trying to say we can't observe words? Even though you have used words in your debate?

What created the universe without God? Big Bang theory is a very promising idea, and their are many others that explain how the universe came to be. .

For something to be created, the creator must be as complex or more complex than what they have created. With that said, if God created the Universe, than their most be a creator who created God that is as complex or more complex than he is. Now you say God is a uncaused caused, why can't the universe be an uncaused cause? Why must the universe have a creator but the being that supposedly created it not?
ALSO, and probably the most astounding evidence God didn't create the Earth, is in the BIBLE!
Genesis 6:11 - The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
How could the Earth be corrupt before God created it? The answer: he didn't create it.
ANOTHER point. You talk about infinity. We know the universe began somehow, so it had a beginning. I request a BoP of something that is infinite that we have seen and observed. Their isn't one. We know things most begin and end. Our minds can't comprehend infinity, and many mathematicians and physicists and philosophers, ect. Have actually wanted to ban infinity for its contradictions. You can see those in paradoxes such as I have listed below: http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Question 1 response: The reason their can't be an infinite past is because it already happen. The future is yet to happen, so it had maximum potential. However, the belief if we live forever is really up to debate, and is a matter of opinion, not fact.

Question 2 response:

You say we can't apply logic to supernatural beings. On a unrelated note, by him being able to lift a boulder he cannot lift is obviously a contradiction and cannot happen. However, I digress and will continue.
If we can't apply logic to a supernatural being, than lets ask if God can read. Reading is a logical task, and it's logical to believe God can read, but if we can't apply logic to a supernatural being, than theirs the chance God can't read the book he himself inspired.
What if God can't understand us? Language is logical, and it's logical to believe God can understand us, but once again if we can't apply logic to a supernatural being, than theirs the chance he can't understand us(maybe that's why we have so many unanswered prayers).
Now you're probably thinking something along the lines of "what In the hell is this guy talking about?" And I understand. So I am going to give some points that will hopefully make this clear.
If you are a fully devoted Christian, you read the bible every chance you get, preach it, live by it, you would expect God to treat you well wouldn't you?
Well, I have a story for you.
A friend of mine is that fully devoted christian. He's 15 years old, and next year will be becoming a minister for youth group. He reads the bible in new teen and during class, often sings gospels and hymns, opens doors for people often being tardy to class, and goes to a bible group during lunch at school he helped fond and preaches the bible.
Now being the Christian he is, you would expect God to give him some God in his life wouldn't you? Then why is it that he is poor? Why is it he is struggling in almost all his classes? Why is it his Girlfriend is now in a coma? Why is it he got in an accident where now his back is permanently curved and can no longer play sports(happen when he was little)?
I ask this, and wonder why I, an atheist, am living an almost perfect life. My family is upper middle class(they are Christians, I'm the odd ball out), I'm not the best looking but I'm fairly attractive(girls have said this, not boasting my own horn), athletic enough to be 2nd string on my highschool football team and will be a starter next season or my senior year, and I have a 3.75 GPA with getting letters to go and represent my state at a science convention and meet Buzz alrdin along with noble prize winners.
Why is it I have a great life while he doesn't?
It's logical to believe God would give all the pros in my life and give them to his devoted servant, and put all the bad onto me, but if we can't apply logic to God, than I guess are logic God loves his followers more than non followers goes out the window as you can see by my story.
What about all the famous athletes and celebrities who are atheist? Making millions of dollars every year, while a devoted Christian sits unemployed in a beat down house that is about to be foreclosed?

In your Calvinism argument, I would like you to present a BoP for something that is random, not predetermined, and not in Gods plan. You will find this is impossible as you nor does anyone else know what Gods plan is, therefore cannot know what is in his plan.

Zeus rebuttal: what if Zeus is invisible? Maybe just invisible to nonbelievers such as you? What if the Gods are just very Good hiders? What if they have decided to move? All of these can explain why you wouldn't see Zeus and the others. The fact remains you can't prove that Zeus doesn't exist.

The Argument from Truth:
I would like you to present a bop for premise 1. What is a eternal truth we have discovered about a being? Because of evolution, certain traits disappear. For example, a banana does not look like it did a few hundred years ago. We have the traits inside us for a tail and Gils, but because of evolution that trait has been shut off and we no longer have them.
Debate Round No. 3
qwzx

Pro

We can't PHYSICALLY observe numbers, words and God. If you can't physically observe something then, why can it not exist.

Almost all theories include a beginning and God can still fit in that description.

How does God acting before time began get around the problem of God's creation? There are two possible interpretations of these verses. One is that God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God has no need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason - so that cause and effect would exist for us. However, since God created time, cause and effect would never apply to His existence.

God exists in multiple dimensions of time

The second interpretation is that God exists in more than one dimension of time. Things that exist in one dimension of time are restricted to time's arrow and are confined to cause and effect. However, two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimensions of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point. Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created.

Why can't the universe be eternal?

The idea that God can be eternal leads us to the idea that maybe the universe is eternal, and, therefore, God doesn't need to exist at all. Actually, this was the prevalent belief of atheists before the observational data of the 20th century strongly refuted the idea that the universe was eternal. This fact presented a big dilemma for atheists, since a non-eternal universe implied that it must have been caused. Maybe Genesis 1:1 was correct! Not to be dismayed by the facts, atheists have invented some metaphysical "science" that attempts to explain away the existence of God. Hence, most atheistic cosmologists believe that we see only the visible part of a much larger "multiverse" that randomly spews out universes with different physical parameters.2 Since there is no evidence supporting this idea (nor can there be, according to the laws of the universe), it is really just a substitute "god" for atheists. And, since this "god" is non-intelligent by definition, it requires a complex hypothesis, which would be ruled out if we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon. Purposeful intelligent design of the universe makes much more sense, especially based upon what we know about the design of the universe

Energy has existed forever and we have witnessed it.

Genesis 6:11 - The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
Con fails to see the true meaning of "before God" , in this case (before God)actually means in "front of". This was also where God was telling Noah of his regret for making humanity. Con has censored/missed out so much information.

Is it truly logical for people to read? Illiteracy was a big problem in the past and reading was only for the wealthy. It was illogical for education to women in the past. Some mentally disabled people can't read and is that not logical. If you still support this logic argument, then logic can change. Changing logic will destroy all of your arguments presented.

God never promised paradise or a good life on earth for his believers and never promised to punish all disbelievers on earth. God will reward the believers that passed away though. You try to use the minor Bible details to disprove God when the major details that disprove almost all you arguments are completely ignored in your arguments. I am a believer in Jesus and have a perfect GPA. Not every Christian is guaranteed a good life like me. That argument is invalid.

Human decisions are all random and not predetermined and constantly change God's "script" for life.

If, you claim that Zeus is invisible to nonbelievers then, I can not give definite proof against his existence. I can not disprove him with clear evidence.

The argument of truth is not a clear piece of evidence but, just a theory. The "facts" that support this are mostly very controversial philosophy. How does evolution disprove this argument?

The Argument from Time and Contingency
1.We notice around us things that come into being and go out of being. A tree, for example, grows from a tiny shoot, flowers brilliantly, then withers and dies.
2.Whatever comes into being or goes out of being does not have to be; nonbeing is a real possibility.
3.Suppose that nothing has to be; that is, that nonbeing is a real possibility for everything.
4.Then right now nothing would exist. For
5.If the universe began to exist, then all being must trace its origin to some past moment before which there existed"literally"nothing at all. But
6.From nothing nothing comes. So
7.The universe could not have begun.
8.But suppose the universe never began. Then, for the infinitely long duration of cosmic history, all being had the built-in possibility not to be. But
9.If in an infinite time that possibility was never realized, then it could not have been a real possibility at all. So
10.There must exist something which has to exist, which cannot not exist. This sort of being is called necessary.
11.Either this necessity belongs to the thing in itself or it is derived from another. If derived from another there must ultimately exist a being whose necessity is not derived, that is, an absolutely necessary being.
12.This absolutely necessary being is God.

Question1: Even though you may never in fact step outside your house all day, it was possible for you to do so. Why is it impossible that the universe still happens to exist, even though it was possible for it to go out of existence?

Reply: The two cases are not really parallel. To step outside your house on a given day is something that you may or may not choose to do. But if nonbeing is a real possibility for you, then you are the kind of being that cannot last forever. In other words, the possibility of nonbeing must be built-in, "programmed," part of your very constitution, a necessary property. And if all being is like that, then how could anything still exist after the passage of an infinite time? For an infinite time is every bit as long as forever. So being must have what it takes to last forever, that is, to stay in existence for an infinite time. Therefore there must exist within the realm of being something that does not tend to go out of existence. And this sort of being, as Aquinas says, is called "necessary."
DrewMcD

Con

I never said just because you can't physically observe something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's exactly the point I was making actually. What about Gravity? What about oxygen? Though we can't see it, we know exist. The reason j believe God doesn't exist is we can't test God. It's a supernatural being and their is no way to observe it and test it. If I said their was a unicorn in the corner of your room, would you believe me? No, because you can't see it and can't test if. However, I tell you to put all your faith into my word. That's what religion and God is.

Almost. Not all. Besides, if most theories WANTED to include God, he would be included. Christians try to find ways to squeeze their God into scientific evidence so their faith isn't destroyed.

Tell me how you know God exists in multiple dimensions.
It's logical to read. That's one of the most common ways for people to communicate. If you didn't read this right now we couldn't have this debate. The mentally disabled maybe can't read, but they have people read to them. Just because people were prejudice and didn't allow women and the poor to read doesn't mean it's illogical. Reading is an asset we need in every day life, and if your God can't read than I don't see him to be all powerful.

If I am nitpicking, then give some major details explaining how my argument is wrong. You must agree with me, whether you will admit it or not, is how unfair it is that I, an atheist, have a better life than a full pledged follower. That's not very right and just, like your God claims he is. Actually, that doesn't seem like he is all good, since someone giving everything he has to good is not getting good in return, shows that God is not omnibenevolent.

What about bible verse Ephesians 1:11? Also at this site list many other verses about predetermination. Once again I ask how you know Gods plan adjust around are actions? Besides, your God is suppose to be omniscient, or all knowing. If your God knows all, than he would already know what we would do, so his plan wouldn't adjust to are actions as he would know what we were going to do before we did it. https://www.biblegateway.com...

You can't give proof against Zeus like I stated. Therefore, I say your God is false, and the actual, true God is zeus. You can't prove me wrong.

You said are mind limited minds can discover eternal truths about something. I asked you to give me an example. The reason I brought in evolution is because if you picked a certain trait, it might change because of evolution. That would mean it's not eternal truth.
Also, side note, just because it's a theory doesn't mean it's not generally accepted. Do you believe in Gravity? Gravity is just a theory, but everyone accepts it.

Like I said before. To create something, the creator has to be as complex or more complex than what it's created. An example is me building a smartphone. I am more or as complex than a smartphone. Therefore, God is as complex or more complex than the universe?
If you agree, than good! If not, then please list why you disagree.
Back to yes. Using the same logic that God is as complex or more complex than the universe, than God must also have a creator as complex or more complex. Now you may say God is eternal and infinite. I've listed before the paradoxes and what's wrong with infinity. Now I ask you to list something eternal we have observed physically.
Debate Round No. 4
qwzx

Pro

qwzx forfeited this round.
DrewMcD

Con

My opponent has forfeited the fifth round. Since he has forfeited, I can only assume he had no rebuttals or new arguments. I ask the voters to keep in mind that he has forfeited this round when voting, while I have put something in each round. Good job to pro. I feel I had very good points. However, that is just my opinion, just like my opinion on God is different than Pro's. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but I feel both sides did a good job presenting information. Which side you think is better is not up to us, but you the voters. Vote con!
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by DrewMcD 2 years ago
DrewMcD
This will most likely be my last debate over religion, at least for the near future. With that said, I'm looking forward to a great debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by mwesigwa1 2 years ago
mwesigwa1
qwzxDrewMcDTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I agreed with pro, but he/she forfeited in the 5th round. Bummer. Therefore, conduct to con. Con also cited sources, unlike pro.