The Instigator
Crayzman2297
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
Liquidus
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points

God's Existence

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 4 votes the winner is...
Crayzman2297
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/3/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 709 times Debate No: 19130
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

Crayzman2297

Con

I witnessed your previous debate on this exact point. You claimed that you could undeniably prove God's existence, and I would care to debate you on the matter.
I would like this to be a revival of that debate, in which you (pro) began with the following:

"I will prove undeniably that God exists. AND that any rejection of Him is a contradiction in itself. I urge the con to go first as I can guarantee that any argument presented by the con will in fact support my argument. Con, take your stand."

By declaring that you will prove anything, you have brought the burden of proof upon yourself. Thank you.
In order for you to win this debate three things must occur:

1.- You must prove undeniably that God exists
2.- You must prove all contradictions of God as rejections of themselves
3.- You must explain how my arguments support yours.

I have created this debate and made it four rounds instead of three. I did this to provide you an opportunity to add any information or conditions to the debate, after which I will happily begin.
Liquidus

Pro

I must say, I am impressed by your presentation. I especially enjoyed your quote. I also find myself to be very thankful for allowing me to state my conditions. Your ethics are inspiring.

I do hope this debate does go better than my last, as I never had the chance to present my insight.

My conditions are that the topic stay relevant and that they are passionate.

Do know that this topic is a relative issue and cannot be *physically* proven, otherwise I would be presenting this before a board of professors rather than a web community.

I will, however, prove the three points you required of me. My intentions are not to convert you, but to convict you.

With this being said, I accept your challenge.

Con, I demand you present a single argument at a time and a convincing one at that.

I will then prove your argument to be invalid and to be supporting my clause. I will use different methods to prove my points.

Con, take your stand.
Debate Round No. 1
Crayzman2297

Con

Thank you for accepting :)

My opening argument is this:

By referring to the object of discussion as "God" (singular, with a capital G) it is to be assumed that we are discussing the Christian God, as the Christians are the only religion that refer to a one superior being in that exact manner.
However, the Christian God is present in some manner or another in various literary works. Should I choose, I could attempt to disprove his existence as he is represented in the Bible, or I could disprove his existence as he is represented in Phillip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy. (an anti-Christian work in which God is a sham who inevitably is destroyed by two children). Because of the multiple literary representations of God, and you're failure to pick the battleground, I shall disprove God as portrayed by Morgan Freeman in the film "Bruce Almighty".
(Just because we are debating the existence of the Christian God does not mean we are limited to the Christian's View of their God).

Actually, I was just toying with you about the Morgan Freeman thing- In the future take note that making anything complicated enough to have loopholes could be your undoing in many debates :)

My first argument against God as perceived by the Christian Bible (King James Version) is this:

"Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." Genesis 1:26 [1]

Should this scripture verse be interpreted literally, men and women alike would look identical to God, yet there are people of infinitely different builds, skin tones, hair/eye color, and appearance. If God created both Adam and Eve in quick succession and told them to populate the earth, their children would all closely resemble their parent. Even after a thousand generations of inbreeding, their children and descendants would still resemble them. A more supported argument is that men evolved from more primitive creatures related to the apes [2]. If such a glaring inconsistency exists between the Bible and Scientific evidence, then the credibility of the Bible should be dismissed as hogwash.

[1] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[2] http://www.creationtheory.org...
Liquidus

Pro

Con, do not give me the opportunity to make a fool of you again.

You arrogantly assumed that I was referring to the Christian God. You also vaguely tried to point out that I was not specific (which could become my downfall). You have also ignored the possibility of Islamic god, Jehovah's Witness's god, Mormon god, Judaical god, Hindu god, and humanistic god. You then took it upon yourself to choose the topic of Christian God because of the case of the "G". Next you prepared a "hogwash" argument based on one of the over 31,000 verses of the Christian Bible. You then sloppily decided that:

" Should this scripture verse be interpreted literally, men and women alike would look identical to God, yet there are people of infinitely different builds, skin tones, hair/eye color, and appearance. If God created both Adam and Eve in quick succession and told them to populate the earth, their children would all closely resemble their parent. "

You yourself have proven yourself to be wrong in your own words.

Allow me to show you how :)

1. You made this statement "Should this scripture verse be interpreted literally", at this point I could say that I did not mean it to be taken literally, then all words following are void. And your point becomes a fallacy.
2. Then you made the following claim: " men and women alike would look identical to God, ", by this, you are claiming to know what "God" looks like. And I would stop this debate to ask you, "what does God look like?".
3. Your next claim is a correlation to you first vague fallacy "yet there are people of infinitely different builds, skin tones, hair/eye color, and appearance."; here you are found to claim that people are not looking like God because of these differences. Well I ask, "How do you know?". Answer: you do not.

I could continue to take the remainder of your "argument", if you will call it that, and pick it apart to expose the fallacies that lie within it. I would expose how you assume to know the speed of which mankind was created, how it must be law to resemble your parent, how after 1,000 years we would still resemble our parents (even though Michael Jackson was white to black parents), and how you believe that people being born to apes is a more supported argument (even though that would be a contradiction to you proposed law of parental similarity).

Now then,

With this being said, I urge you to present an argument that can stand up to logic instead of trying to prove your opponent to be a weak debater. Since you have failed to present a strong argument to support your clause, I will take the liberty of making the specifications as to "what" we are arguing about since you are confused between Morgan Freeman and Phillip Pullman.

We are arguing about the God of the original Hebrew and Greek Bible. He is referred to as "I AM THAT I AM" (Jehovah), or Jesus Christ (Yahweh), or the Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit). Now then, because you have brought it up as an argument, how EXACTLY, in detail, did we evolve from apes? Please give extra concern to the development of our eyes, the process by which this occurred, the chemical structure that became us (and its origin), and what the initiation of all creation is/was. If you find trouble showing me this, (as many educated scientists have), feel free to give up, admit being wrong, and proceed to choose another angle. I assure you that my topic is strong, and my confidence in the "Liquidus" or "Evidence" for my clause will prove to be inevitably true. Now then.

Con, I challenge you to answer the questions I have provided you in detail. If you fail to answer any one of these questions, you lose.

Note: Next time choose your words with precision.
Debate Round No. 2
Crayzman2297

Con

Crayzman2297 forfeited this round.
Liquidus

Pro

As you have seen, my opponent has forfeited. While in the face of votes this may seem great, I was looking forward to a debate. If anyone would be willing to challenge me, I will gladly accept.

Thanks to crazyman2297 for your time.

--God Be With You All.
Debate Round No. 3
Crayzman2297

Con

My forfeiture of the previous round was a result of electrical difficulties in my area: no power = no computer.
I apologize for accidentally giving the false impression that I had given up.

First, let me say that I was hoping to keep this debate lighthearted- your accusations of "arrogance" and promises to "make a fool of me" demonstrate that you share no such desires. You also declared my arguments "hogwash". I take offence. Your vehemence disappoints me.

Allow me to defend myself:

You stated the following:
"You have also ignored the possibility of Islamic god, Jehovah's Witness's god, Mormon god, Judaical god, Hindu god, and humanistic god."

First let me state that both Jehovah's Witnesses and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints consider themselves to be Christians, and that the definition of Christian according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is this:

1Chris�tian
noun \ˈkris-chən, ˈkrish-1a: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ [3]

-Both the Jehovah's Witness organization and the LDS Church fit this definition accurately, therefore their God is the Christian God. (However most Christian organizations deny them as being Christian, they fit the dictionary definition).
-There is no official "Humanistic God". In fact, many Humanists do not believe in a god.
-The proper name of the Jewish god is "YHVH", or "Yahweh", who is the Old Testament God.
-There are MULTIPLE Hindu gods, none of which are called "God".

The defense of my "capital G" argument is that NO OTHER RELIGIONS refer to their deity as such. "God" is Christian, in the way that "Yahweh" is Jewish.

I will now dismantle your counterarguments-
1. "should this scripture be interpreted literally"- It must be, or else it cannot be used to prove anything. If meanings are open for interpretation, then all conclusions are matters of opinion, cannot be reinforced but with more opinion.

2. "I would stop and ask you, what does God look like?"- Forgive my for not explaining my full argument. If one man and one woman are the antecedents of the entire human race, then their offspring would be required to breed with themselves. Such a small gene pool would yield children with remarkably similar physical traits. Today we have multiple races. Genetically, this is impossible. You cannot take a Black man and a White man and say they both look like God.

3. I politely ask YOU to explain to me how two people with zero physical traits in common can both look like God.

You also attempt to use Michael Jackson to support your genetics argument, whilst not knowing that he had undergone multiple plastic surgeries and had also bleached his skin in an effort to combat the skin disease "vitiligo". The disease causes your skin to become lighter in irregular splotches, and it began on MJ's hand. This is why he wore a single glove during the "Thriller" era. [4]

I would also like to point out that even though I started this debate, I did so on the terms of your previous terms, where you claimed that YOU could "undeniably prove the existence of God". You have given me no undeniable proof as of yet, and have merely attempted to shoot down counterexamples.
I will not explain evolution, as it is irrelevant and I am running out of Characters.
You have no right to improvise rules and declare that "I Lose" if I choose not to acknowledge your blind ignorance.
I was under the impression that when you said "Undeniable", you meant it.
My closing argument against your God is this, for lack of characters:

"Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns!" (Revelation 19:6).

om�nip�o�tent (m-np-tnt)
adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. [3]

Can God create a task that he can not accomplish?
Yes? Then he is not all powerful.
No? Then he is not all powerful.
Omnipotence is impossible by definition.

[3]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Liquidus

Pro

Thank you for joining me again. I was hoping we could continue.

Because you used your first argument as a way of trying to make a fool of me, I deducted to use my first rebuttal as a way to make a fool of you.

It is my full intentions to keep this debate light hearted. I apologize you had to experience such a rash rebuttal, I wanted you to observe the "vehemence" you tried to imply.

I should start by mentioning that Jehovah's Witness and The Church of the Latter Day Saints do not consider themselves Christians; they consider themselves as they are.

"1Chris·tian
noun \ˈkris-chən, ˈkrish-1a: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ [3]"

Jehovah's Witnesses believe in the teachings of Charles Taze Russell, while Mormons believe in the teachings of Joseph Smith. The teachings of those two cults both contradict the teachings of Jesus Christ and therefore, demonstrate that they profess belief in Charles Russell and Joseph Smith as opposed to Jesus Christ. Humanistic teachings is that man is his own god, therefore, humanists do believe in a god. Hindu belief teaches the belief in a god known as the unknown god in conjunction with others. Other religions do believe in "Capital G" god, such as Agnostics and other deists.

Next I will allow for my say in your attempt at a dismantle:

1. Yes it can. A majority of the Bible is metaphoric. As a matter of fact, that verse is in part metaphoric, I will explain later.

2. It is possible in the study of human genetics that mutations can occur within an inbred society. Many Evolutionists believe this.

3. I will: When we are made in God's image, we are made with an eternal spirit.

I should Vitilgo is a very important disease in the field of genetics. Because you have used it, I assume you are familiar with it and its effect on chromosome duplications. This supports my theory of mutational inbred reproduction.

And on a final note of your "image" argument. We are created with an eternal soul, that is one of the ways we were created in God's image. Please note that my opponent also could not provide or attempt to provide an explanation for evolutionary process.

Before I get to my point I would like to make a comment on your attack on the omnipotence of God: This word itself is void. How can we attempt to define God? Just because a word exists, does not mean it can accurately define God. Gods sovereignty overrules that of a finite mind.

However, this is besides the point.

You have taken me up on my word, that is, to supply undeniable evidence that God exists.

Allow me to provide one of twenty-one arguments I have. I would normally choose number 6 but it will not fit resolve my remaining character limit. However, I will provide it in a latter rebuttal. This being said, I will choose the one that will best fulfill my remaining characters, in this case, argument 17:

17. The Argument from Aesthetic Experience

There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach.

Therefore there must be a God.

You either see this one or you don't.

I apologize for this argument being so poor, but I promise to provide a better argument in my next rebuttal.

Conclusion

My opponent and I have cleared up some misconceptions regarding minor details from the initial impressionist portion of this debate.

1. I have provided a proper counter to my opponents fallacies.

2. I have exposed the "veil fallacy" within my opponents arguments (attempt to appear knowledgeable)

3. I have provided "undeniable proof" for the existence of God.

My opponent now must provide a response solely to the argument I provided in my rebuttal, that is, Argument 17. I also urge my Con not to waste my time any more with the comments made from our earlier openings.

Thank you Con for your time and for considering to continue this debate with me.

Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Liquidus 5 years ago
Liquidus
lol "atheism.about.com" Is there really anything about atheism?
Posted by Crayzman2297 5 years ago
Crayzman2297
You can argue in favor of those until you are blue in the face- It's all based on nothing substantial... certainly not anything to prove that the Christian God is the correct deity if there is one. Believers of this so called "God" have been responsible for more death and destruction than any athiest.
Here, I recommend you research before you try and claim undeniable proof of a benevolent and omnipotent God:
http://atheism.about.com...
Posted by Liquidus 5 years ago
Liquidus
I have something you may be interested in: http://www.peterkreeft.com...

I recommend you research before you try to write off lies as fact :)
Posted by Crayzman2297 5 years ago
Crayzman2297
Sure.
-First, Vitiligo is not hereditary. It is much like obesity in that if a parent has it, their children are MORE LIKELY to have it. This would in no way result in a massively multiracial society such as we have today.
-Second, both the LDS church and Jehovah's Witnesses regard Jesus Christ as the son of God, and study Jesus's teachings in the bible. Agnosticism is not an established religion-- there is no established church of agnosticism, and you failed to be specific as to which other "deists" you were referring to.
-A Soul is not an image. You can only refute this if you have proof otherwise.
-I used the word omnipotence directly from the bible. If you are going to disregard its relevance,
-You have not proven any "veil fallacies", because I have backed up my facts with relevant and accepted sources. You, on the other hand, have not included a single citation to prove your "facts" are anything other than your own thoughts.
-"There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach. Therefore there must be a God." = Non sequitur
You may as well have said "there are pandas, therefore there must be a God". Your argument, besides being uncited, has no supporting evidence. There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach because there was Bach, not God. Throughout this entire debate you have failed to carry your burden of proof.
Posted by Liquidus 5 years ago
Liquidus
I believed this debate to be five rounds. If you are interested, I would urge you to continue this debate with me.
Posted by Liquidus 5 years ago
Liquidus
5 and a half minutes remaining. I hope there will be someone willing to challenge me to this debate as I have yet to have a complete debate on this topic.
Posted by Liquidus 5 years ago
Liquidus
1:30 remaining, I do hope there comes a rebuttal from my opponent.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
Crayzman2297LiquidusTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter vb
Vote Placed by Renascor 5 years ago
Renascor
Crayzman2297LiquidusTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Impressive argument from Pro in the last round. Con also loses conduct points for the first round, however Pro made a great comeback in the second phase. Great debate on Pros side.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Crayzman2297LiquidusTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Some of Pro's sentences didn't make sense. Pro undertook to prove undeniably that god exists, but he never attempted to do so.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Crayzman2297LiquidusTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Con really didnt fill in the BoP. Pro did it pretty well, it could have been better, but con didnt do it well he gets scources though.