The Instigator
TheAmazingAtheist1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MrRepzion
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

I believe that God exists

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 2 votes the winner is...
MrRepzion
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/27/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 592 times Debate No: 41354
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

TheAmazingAtheist1

Pro

R1) Acceptance
R2) Presentations
R3) Rebuttals
R4) More arguments
R5) More arguments & Conclusion
MrRepzion

Con

I accept, and look forward to your arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
TheAmazingAtheist1

Pro

I can not present evidence proportional to my claim. I take it upon faith.

Don't believe me?

Have you ever percepted your brain? No? Then according to the established laws of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, Science says you have no brain. So how should we trust your lectures? Faith correct? Exactly.
MrRepzion

Con

There are only 3 rounds. Therefore, we may have to continue via another debate (Unless you concede that you lose the debate).

Presentation(s):

Like SubjectiveMorality[1](Credibility issues) said, I simply do not hold the belief that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, monotheistic God exists until evidence proportional to the claim is presented, like alleged facts material to a case. For instance, there is a box. Some claim that the box contains something. However, we haven't opened the box yet. Therefore there is no sufficient justification to prove the claim. However, it is still possible.

Heat is susceptible to the human body. It transmits energy. Therefore, it contains energy. According to its laws of conservation[2], it states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change"it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can change form, for instance chemical energy can be converted to kinetic energy in the explosion of a stick of dynamite.

A consequence of the law of conservation of energy is that a perpetual motion machine of the first kind cannot exist. That is to say, no system without an external energy supply can deliver an unlimited amount of energy to its surroundings. Therefore, God didn't create energy. Therefore, he intrinsically (As a belief) doesn't exist.

Source(s):

[1] http://www.debate.org...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
MrRepzion

Con

Rebuttal(s):

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

In law, rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding, as well as the quality and quantity of evidence that are necessary to fulfill the legal burden of proof. Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence.

Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method.
In philosophy, the study of evidence is closely tied to epistomology, which considers the nature of knowledge and how it can be acquired.[1]

Conflicting evidence or alternative explanations definitely does not equate to "no evidence." However, that does not intrinsically and/or scientifically prove God's existence either.

The particular evidence he presented to establish the resolution that a monotheistic, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God in fact, exists is him being "healed" simultaneously by God after being diagnosed with an incurable disease. Then after extensive and intrusive testing, his doctor delivered the news that he had ulcerative colitis.[2]

You have divulged tons of information about it. However, like my friend's ancestors quote:

"If you will use alleged supernatural occurences material to the resolution, you still need to prove that that occurence ACTUALLY occured."

You can not defend your position, for you can not present evidence proportional to your claim. Therefore, you lose.

"Have you ever percepted your brain? No? Then according to the established laws of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, Science says you have no brain. So how should we trust your lectures? Faith correct? Exactly."

Yes I have seen my brain in various scans/pictures, and I contend that science can easily demonstrate that I have a brain, and that no faith is required to belief that I have a brain.

Faith, I think we agree based on what you've stated previously, is defined as the belief in something without any evidence. Logic, reason, skepticism, and the critical assessment and testing of falsifiable claims is what provides evidence and sufficient justification to believe any claim, including the claim that I do in fact have a brain.

In order to move forward, we both need to reject the idea of hard solipsism, namely that one can only one's own mind is sure to exist, in other words nothing outside of the brain can be known to exist. If you do not accept this starting premise, we can't really have this debate, as you would be conceding that you would in fact be debating yourself inside your own mind, rather than another thinking human via the internet.

Source(s):

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://www.patheos.com...
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Rekthor 3 years ago
Rekthor
Those two aren't mutually exclusive, Nzrsaa, plus, it's practically the go-to example of a post hoc fallacy. It's the same as me saying that if I pray for my little brother to come home from school today and he does, that god intervened.

And actually, Pro cited that as evidence for the existence of god. If we accept that, because he didn't specify, then we assume that this one link provides sufficient evidence for belief. That is nonsense.
Posted by Shadow4155 3 years ago
Shadow4155
Con will definitely win.. pro made little to no arguments/proof.
Posted by Nzrsaa 3 years ago
Nzrsaa
Rekthor,
I'm not really sure Pro was commiting a post hoc fallacy...
An argument from miracles is more kind of inductive reasoning.
God Bless
Posted by Rekthor 3 years ago
Rekthor
Despite that both of you have the names of infamous YouTube atheists, Pro's got no argument. Healing from miracles isn't evidence of god; that's a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument, and is a logical fallacy. Fail.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 3 years ago
birdlandmemories
TheAmazingAtheist1MrRepzionTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: No arguments posted by pro. Con had a very detailed argument backed by sources.
Vote Placed by Shadow4155 3 years ago
Shadow4155
TheAmazingAtheist1MrRepzionTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: More convincing arguments