The Instigator
DanneJeRusse
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Jerry947
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

I Will Prove 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 785 times Debate No: 85913
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

DanneJeRusse

Con

: At 2/1/2016 4:29:40 PM, Jerry947 wrote:
: How else would you recommend I prove God's existence over the internet? A debate seems the best way to go.

http://www.debate.org...

Jerry947 has graciously offered to prove God's existence, and rather than doing so on the forums, he has insisted on a formal debate platform.

I wish him all the best with presenting his proof. Since this should only require one round, this will be my only opportunity for argument. But, since Jerry has assured me his proof will be compelling and convincing, I leave the floor to him. Good luck.
Jerry947

Pro

I am pretty confused why my opponent only made this debate one round and I also don't know why my opponent has made the debate so one sided. I mean...he literally doesn't have to do anything. I offered to let him change the debate format but he declined.

Definition of Prove: to show the existence, truth, or correctness of (something) by using evidence, logic, etc.(https://www.google.com...).

I will be using the existence of objective morality and the existence of truth as evidence for God's existence...

The Axiological Argument:

a. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

My brief defense of this premise: Objective morals have to come from an objective source and that source can only be God. Nothing/nobody else could produce an objective moral code.

b. Objective moral values do exist.

My brief defense of this premise: Almost all people are aware that murder, lying, stealing, and etc...are wrong. it seems crazy to believe that every person just so happens to have the same subjective opinion on these basic moral principles. There must be some sort of universal moral law that exists.

c. Therefore, God exists.

That is the short version of the argument. Please tell me what problems you have with the argument and I will address them in the next round.

Common objections answered...
Only religion can give the most logical explanation for the origin of morality. Most people have an idea of what is right and wrong. Religious people, most of the time state that morality comes from God. This makes sense considering most people abide by an objective moral code that they expect everyone to know about. And the only way an objective moral code could exist is if a God created it. Objective morality can only come from an objective being (God). Now some people might argue that there is no such thing as objective morality or a real right and wrong. But the people that argue this always go back on their claim a moment later (C.S. Lewis). People try to argue that morality is created by societies. But we also understand that there are societies that have condoned evil practices when in fact people know that the society was wrong. For example, W. H. Auden, a famous 20th century poet, said that "there had to be a reason Hitler was utterly wrong." Auden said this famous quote after going to a theater that showed pictures of the Holocaust. These pictures sickened him and made him rethink his worldview. Before watching these pictures, Auden believed that it was up to the society to decide what was right and wrong. But during his time at the theater he realized that if societies decided what was right and wrong, and if morality is subjective, this would mean that Hitler was justified in everything he did. Well, at least according to that society. And who are we to tell them they are wrong if morality is purely subjective? Therefore, religion gives the best explanation for why there is an objective morality and why it exists.

Even though religion gives a great explanation for why morality exists, it also gives the only real reason people have to be moral. According to religion, people are moral to receive gifts or to avoid punishment from God. Others in religion believe they are moral to be more like their loving God. There is no other reason to be moral. Although people have no reason to be moral, people may have some objections. Some may argue that they are moral to benefit society. The problem with this response is that benefiting society is part of what it means to be moral. Another objection would be that morality is merely an instinct. The problem with this claim is that people have different instincts which would make morality subjective. And again, if morality is subjective, we could never tell people that they are doing something wrong. Another problem with this argument is that morality is usually that thing that decides between which instincts to follow. For example, if a person were to hear a gun shot and a cry for help, people would most likely have two instincts. One would be to run away from danger; another instinct would be to run to help the person. Morality might push a person to choose the weaker instinct, which is to choose to help the person instead of saving themselves. Therefore, religion gives the only reason to be moral. Without God, there is no reason to be moral. But religion tells people to be moral to please their God or to be more like him.

The Truth Argument:

a. Truth is a statement that agrees with reality. Or in other words, truths make statements about what is real. For example, if I were to say that Obama is currently the President of the United States, I would be making a statement that agrees with reality.
b. Truth requires a mind. Sine truths are statements...and because statements are made by a mind, then it follows that truth requires a mind.
c. There are universal truths. 1+1 will always equal 2 no matter who is aware of this fact.
d. Therefore it follows that there must be a universal mind (God).

So these two pieces of evidence prove (using definition I gave) the existence of God.

Again, I don't see why this is fair to my opponent since he can't refute any argument I have made. But I guess this is the way things go sometimes.
Debate Round No. 1
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by johnlubba 1 year ago
johnlubba
The fact that you haven't made a rebuttal to the arguments Jerry made, weather sound or not, means his arguments stand,

You are lucky to get away with a tie here Dan.
Posted by johnlubba 1 year ago
johnlubba
Dan actually did a debate :), Congrats dude. I haven't read it yet so don't know who won arguments but I would have deducted a conduct point for starting a one round debate especially a debate concerning the existence of God.

Weather that would be contested would remain to be seen, but seriously setting up A one round debate on the existence of God is, well, crappy.

But nonetheless it's good to see Dan have a debate. :)
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: famousdebater// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro met his BOP due to the fact that there was 1 round and therefore his argument were unable to be contested. Therefore he wins by default and meets his BOP.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter has to do more than just state that Pro's arguments weren't contested and therefore Pro wins. It has to be clear how Pro met his burden of proof, and not just stated that he did.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: ssadi// Mod action: Removed<

3 point to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: 1) Con was the Instigator and it was up to him to give himself a chance to give rebuttals to Pro's arguments by providing a different debate format with more than one round. As Con he chose to do nothing in this debate, hence a poor conduct. Therefore, conduct should go to Pro. But I am afraid this opinion of mine may be open to some objections, so I will not vote for conduct. 2) Pro provided some arguments to which Con provided no rebuttals, nor has Con provided any argument to establish the opposite proposition of the debate topic. => Therefore, A goes to Pro!

[*Reason for removal*] The voter has to do more than just state that Pro's arguments weren't contested and therefore Pro wins. It has to be clear how Pro met his burden of proof, and not just stated that he did.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: TheBunnyAssassin// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: god is too overrated. why not buddha, vishnu, allah?

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD. Just the voter"s opinion on God.
************************************************************************
Posted by DanneJeRusse 1 year ago
DanneJeRusse
I don't care if Jerry wins, he didn't provide any proof of God's existence, just a lot of fallacious rhetoric, nothing short of what I expected.
Posted by Briannj17 1 year ago
Briannj17
It's despicable that despite the warnings that Jerry gave you regarding the absurdity of only making a one round debate you went against reason and are now stuck unable to rebut what he is saying successfully and therefore Jerry will win on arguments since he is the only one who supplied an argument.
Posted by DanneJeRusse 1 year ago
DanneJeRusse
There was no need for debate, Jerry claimed he could provide proof of God's existence and demanded it be here rather than in the forums, his reasons are his own for wanting this, hence I accommodated his request. How is that arrogant and despicable?
Posted by Briannj17 1 year ago
Briannj17
How arrogant for con to believe he can get away without making a single argument. It's despicable! This is one of the worst debates I have ever encountered. Good job to Jerry though. I hope to see another debate with arguments from both sides.
No votes have been placed for this debate.