The Instigator
GoOrDin
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Burncastle
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

In defence of Theism, Prove me wrong.

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...
Burncastle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/4/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 693 times Debate No: 61264
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

GoOrDin

Pro

As a theist, A Christian, I have the universal cosmos on my side to defend this argument. As a Christian, I can not only quote the Quran but also Muslims in saying, that the Holy Quran supports me in my faith without contradictions. Hinduism, which via Sanskrit is argued to be Monotheist in nature, Supports all my claims. the Mythology of Europe, supports my claims, as well as all worldly philosophies.

As a Christian I rely heavily on sciences and logic to defend my case. And There is no evidence to suggest I am in any way wrong about my Religion or faith.

Philosophically I am sound, with a Corner stone as my foundation with which I may crush my opponents.

I suggest you work in teams to mass your arguments.
I am pleased to have this opportunity.
Please bring the Atheists A game. As I am not a shark.
Burncastle

Con

I accept your challenge. Please present your case in the next round so that I may begin to address it. I need to know how you take the Bible (what is literal and what isn't) and what your arguments for the existence of God are. In order to "prove you wrong", I need to know what your position is.

"And There is no evidence to suggest I am in any way wrong about my Religion or faith." Be careful, you are nearing a fallacious shifting of the burden of proof.

"Philosophically I am sound, with a Corner stone as my foundation with which I may crush my opponents." I can't wait to see that.

"I suggest you work in teams to mass your arguments." Unless someone offers to help me, I will be alone in this endeavour.

"Please bring the Atheists A game." I'll do the best I can.

This is going to be fun. Let's begin!
Debate Round No. 1
GoOrDin

Pro

"The Fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom" ~ "The Fear of God is to hate what God hates" Proverbs.

in order to disprove the existence of God you must accept the lack of his existence. By doing this, you have proclaimed Math to be his replacement, and thus, because, as math is most beloved because of it's simple nature to only have one result, one answer, Free will cannot co-exist. An unavoidable destiny accompanies atheism, and no choices can be made, only the manifest illusion of choice. Via this theorem, rapists and murderers are absolved not only of sin, because morality is thus non existent as well, but they would be innocent because no choice can ever be made. math itself is uncontestable in it's chemical course to a determined end. [no freewill or morals] . And, yet, in the end, this mathematical entity, still proclaims diligently, that God is real as the creator of the universe as the mathematical answer to existence.

As we progress to the existence of our Creator, we should first look to where he has directed the attention of man since the beginning of time to acknowledge him, For, "'Only through an image of God he has selected for himself, can you truly come into an understanding or perception of He, himself."

Abraham; Migrated from the east after the tower of Babel was desolated. His origins were that of the Hindu nations. If one were to read Hinduism, God is proclaimed to be Krishna, who is the embodiment of all things, the God head of all entities, and that no other deity has any authority over the simplest, mi-nute things. Abraham was a Monotheist who worship this entity, now pronounced and acknowledged as "Krishna". Because Krishna is beyond understanding, His majestic form is described in portions. Jesus Christ is the entity for which God has chosen for himself to be acknowledged through, and even Islam proclaims you must Acknowledge the God of Jesus, and his message, in order to attain enlightenment in faith.

Mythologies are also Monotheist religions. In each, one omnipotent Creator {Chaos, The Father of Odin, Krishna], creates the universe without the assistance of any other, and in the end, no other is inherently in authority over any element, or power to create or destroy, but are somewhat bestowed with their powers as temporary blessings. The Biblical scriptures proclaim that angels descended from heaven and mated with human women; so whether this is factual or philosophical metaphors is irrelevant to the fact that, the stories proclaim truths about the human nature whilst accommodating scripture history and philosophy.

No religion world wide with a: creation story; a philosophy; law of morals; scriptures; and prophecy exists, which contradicts the true faith in God. And accordingly, these minor, "beliefs" are not religions. The do not accommodate the credentials.

No true faiths contradict each other, but instead all religion, even to the most remote islands proclaim, marriage is sacred between a man and his wife in unity with the Creator.

because God has revealed himself to the whole world, we can progress, to understand what he has revealed.

As God the father, Chaos, is unperceivable in all his glory and his infinite form, The first of all his acts, his perceivable acts, to establish for himself a perceivable form. One which can be acknowledged, that one can say, "This is God." and that God is not any other than what and who he truly is. This Form, "His first act of long ago."{proverbs] is the Wisdom of God, the Light of the World, Our Lord and savior from death and darkness, Jesus Christ: The First son of God, through who all things were established.
For as the first book of Genesis states that God said for there to be light, and God said for the waters to be divided, and God said for the dry land to come forth, It was the father who tasked his son to do these things, and through his Wisdom, God created the Universe. But in the second book, "God" became addressed as the Lord God, For now Jesus was our companion in existence apart from the timeless infin-ancy of his father, God. And in his perfect form as the most admirable God, as chosen by the God of infinite proportions who knows all things, Jesus our Lord God lived amongst reality with his own freewill apart from his fathers infinite knowledge that he might be perfect, for he is endlessly pleasing to God in this form. Jesus is thus, represented as 1. full.

because you can read the first comment I posted in a debate, Creationism vs. Atheism, You can review the scientific accuracy of Creation elsewhere on this website.

But as Creation can be observed to be accurate via the use of the geology of the Planets foundations, indicating a sudden growth from within, not an accumulated growth from without, we can also observe historical moments, such as the destruction of the tower of Babel, when the tower was destroyed in the day of pe'leg, when the earth was divided. This is peculiar, because thought in one sentence it says the people's languages were confounded, it specifically says the "earth was divided".
In China, though researching such a result is incredibly stifling, there is a Mountain called the Axis of the Planet, and justly it is. For Australia was torn from the mainland, as the Ganges rivers spread apart into the Indian ocean, crushing the Himalayan Mountains into shape.

Carbon dating is a flawed science: In order to determine the date of a deteriorated substance after it has eroded, You must first factually know exactly what it was made of prior to deteriorating. Otherwise no mathematical formula can be contributed to the discover of the date. The varying date can simply be viewed as different qualities of various substances within the matter. The mathematical formula of Carbon-dating, also neglects to address weather conditions. Carbon dating cannot be used to determine the date of anything beyond a rationally factual date, and cannot support theories contradictory to Theism because there is no factual evidence it is accurate.

because of this, there is little to stand against Theism. As not even fossils can be factually dated. "It is one of my favorite jokes to state: that rock must be a great kisser. you brilliant brilliant man. {whilst imagining the toothless grin of a scientist]"
and other jokes stipulating over the evolution of birds and fish crawling out of the sea. "Two brother sea creatures crawl from the water to escape a greater predator, (because there is surely no food on land for them. sea creatures can't eat organic plant life from land), and one says to the other, "Okay, I will grow wings and fly away. You, you just go hide under a rock." the other thinks briefly and remarks, "What about your gills?" and the first replies quite snidely, "What gills? I'm a Bird." as it flies away."

The greatest prospect of religion however I that via accepting he universe as being without blame in the negative outcomes of society, always remembering God contributed factually to not only the best outcomes such as moral rights to protect people and give them freedoms and guidance. Coming into this understanding is complete enlightenment, and is truly fulfilling: as you are empowered and liberated to become a great man before God, who bestows the best of blessings and rewards. For only by choosing the Right path can one reach true happiness, for the wrong path is always a lesser, and leads to less than an illusion of happiness.

I will hold my tongue but briefly to hear you response. As I feel this debate is won in my favor. I have stipulated over no opinionated or disputable facts.
Burncastle

Con

Thank you for your argument. I will address them paragraph per paragraph.

I can easily dismiss the first paragraph, because you basically use a false dichotomy to present a non-sequitur and end up making a fallacious appeal to consequences; you say that if God doesn't exist then mathematics is all that we are left with (false dichotomy) which means that there is no free will (non-sequitur) and therefore we can not be judged for the actions that we make (appeal to consequences). Even if I were to grant that free will is ultimately illusory, so what? Punishing murderers and rapists is a practical necessity; it is a fact that society is better off when these people are locked up.

This paragraph is useless and devoid of any argument.

The same goes for this paragraph. The fact that religion X preaches a doctrine that is somewhat similar to religion Y is absolutely irrelevant; the truth of those assertions must be demonstrated.

Mythologies are not all monotheist; the Norse mythology has many gods, so does the Hindu mythology and the Greek mythology. You seem to be under the impression that holy scriptures are evidence for the claims that they themselves make; they're not.

Every religion that is not Christianity contradicts Christianity. Even within your own religion people can't seem to agree on various issues, which is why there are so many denominations of Christianity.

Again, irrelevant. Consistency between religions does not tell you if any of them is actually true.

Empty statement.

Once again, no arguments were made in this paragraph. The Bible can not be evidence for its own claims.

Reciting the story of Genesis is not an argument, its preaching.

I have never seen a single scientific evidence in support of creation, whether it be the young Earth version or the old Earth version. The only thing that people can come up with is a couple of arguments from ignorance.

The formation of planets is a well understood phenomenon that does not require any intervention from an intelligent being. Ever heard of gravity? I was not aware that we were able to observe the destruction of the tower of Babel.

Sources please. And vague correlation does not imply causation OR truth.

Carbon dating is in fact VERY accurate. The assumptions that you have to make are very safe considering what we know about the Earth. Moreover, the results that it produces are in line with other methods of dating.

Carbon dating is indeed not the best method to date fossils because it only works for the past 50 000 years and the majority of fossils are FAR older than that. To date fossils, scientists date the rock in which they are found.

Your parody of evolution is a waste of characters.

Again, preaching.

I am sorry that my rebuttals are extremely short, but you did not present anything of substance in this past round; you mostly preached and made unsupported assertions regarding science. In the next round, please remain on topic.

P.S. Don't take this the wrong way, but could you please proof read your argument before posting it? The syntax of some of your sentences made it difficult for me to understand what you were saying.
Debate Round No. 2
GoOrDin

Pro

I see you have reached the conclusion, and it is very wise of you,
That your side of the debate is not to prove anything but my lack of having Proven my point.
That is the foundation on which I placed this debate. I am right under all conditions, and have no false claims to provide.

Because of this, I insist you take the time to consider mythology in it's historical, philosophical and spiritual context before stipulating you know more about them than I have provided as being truth.

In addition. Reconsider creation, and to the logical consideration required, to go forward and do the geological research yourself without any sources except detailed global maps, and consideration of the day of Pe'leg and perhaps if you become baffled the Mormon account of Jesus's crusifiction when the Gulf of Mexico is claimed to have burst open. But that is simply to consider the formation having occurred later than creation. ** not a necessary step, but a compelling argument for Mormonism.
(mormonism actually states very clearly in it's scriptures that they can only have one wife lest they have enmity between them. and also, although they have no scripture to indicate it, believe they will become gods in the afterlife. which for the cult following of bigamist mormons, is ridiculous, because by having more sons impairs this potential occurrence because they are guilty for the sins of their sons, as they were failures as fathers.)

But.

what I have proven, is Free-will cannot exist without God. A mathematical universe has no space for liberal choices. That will never be a viable debate in court when being prosecuted for sins. Thus you cannot defend atheism at all , and my claims to defend theism stand. Only a universe ruled by a God, and not math can be subject to free-will.

When God said to drain the blood from animals or it would not be clean. Do not eat blood. Was it coincidental, Hormones cause deficiencies. It is proven hormones cause deficiencies, and meat with added hormones cannot be sold in Canada because digesting them doesn't prevent them from effecting you negatively. Hormone rich blood, must be drained, is the commandment of our God, the God of Israel.

If gravity can be disproven, which it can; one can argue that objects floating around in space demonstrate no gravitational attraction to each other. The moons of Jupiter, never attract one another, or collide with the immense planet - how illogical. However we can stipulate it is very easy to see that planets and moons orbit in a vortex, which is governed by the energies pools, leaving a path of least resistance for them to take. Gravity on earth, which is the only gravity studied can be easily argued to be the sky pressing in on us. The singularity of the earths atmosphere, arranging a clear mid-center, where after reducing it's volume to minimal extents, creates a clear self awareness for the energy to draw to the center before releasing in the 'Evening' of the worlds energies.
This is not a disputable comment, indicating my entire debate is sound, due to the fact that I have stipulated over the assurity, just like all my other claims, that what I say has merit. And so, I defend my debate topic, I am Right in all my theology. Because my comments are stiipulations** ahh you see! Flawless.

Now, have you experienced the required self-educating process of at least, observing history and geology, which was the remnants of your last attempt to dislodge my assured Theologies? for it is your turn again,

proceed.
Burncastle

Con

Thank you for your response.

"I see you have reached the conclusion, and it is very wise of you,
That your side of the debate is not to prove anything but my lack of having Proven my point." Indeed, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim (i.e there is a God).

"I am right under all conditions, and have no false claims to provide." That is what we are here to verify.

"Because of this, I insist you take the time to consider mythology in it's historical, philosophical and spiritual context before stipulating you know more about them than I have provided as being truth." It is your job to convince me of the truth of these claims. I have looked into many religious myths and found NONE of them to be even slightly convincing.

"In addition. Reconsider creation, and to the logical consideration required, to go forward and do the geological research yourself without any sources except detailed global maps, and consideration of the day of Pe'leg and perhaps if you become baffled the Mormon account of Jesus's crusifiction when the Gulf of Mexico is claimed to have burst open. But that is simply to consider the formation having occurred later than creation. ** not a necessary step, but a compelling argument for Mormonism." What does this have to do with this debate?

"what I have proven, is Free-will cannot exist without God. A mathematical universe has no space for liberal choices. That will never be a viable debate in court when being prosecuted for sins. Thus you cannot defend atheism at all , and my claims to defend theism stand. Only a universe ruled by a God, and not math can be subject to free-will." You have not "proven" anything, you simply asserted that there is no free-will without God by using a false dichotomy between God and mathematics (and are you saying that if there is a God, mathematics do not exist?). Moreover, this is an appeal to consequences; there very well might be no free-will, but how is that an argument?

"When God said to drain the blood from animals or it would not be clean. Do not eat blood. Was it coincidental, Hormones cause deficiencies. It is proven hormones cause deficiencies, and meat with added hormones cannot be sold in Canada because digesting them doesn't prevent them from effecting you negatively. Hormone rich blood, must be drained, is the commandment of our God, the God of Israel." Meat also contains the best proteins. And some hormones are very beneficial (growth hormones are very useful for some people). But in any case, how is this relevant?

"If gravity can be disproven, which it can; one can argue that objects floating around in space demonstrate no gravitational attraction to each other. The moons of Jupiter, never attract one another, or collide with the immense planet - how illogical." Newton's theory of gravity is IN FACT wrong, at least on the micro level (which is better explained by Einstein's theory of relativity); we still use it because is works fine on the macro level. The reason why Jupiter's moons do not come crashing on the planet is because of a phenomenon called "orbit".

"However we can stipulate it is very easy to see that planets and moons orbit in a vortex, which is governed by the energies pools, leaving a path of least resistance for them to take." It is very easy to stipulate anything, the hard part is to demonstrate the truth of those stipulations (which you have not done).

"Gravity on earth, which is the only gravity studied can be easily argued to be the sky pressing in on us. The singularity of the earths atmosphere, arranging a clear mid-center, where after reducing it's volume to minimal extents, creates a clear self awareness for the energy to draw to the center before releasing in the 'Evening' of the worlds energies." Deepak, is that you? Seriously though, what are you talking about?

"This is not a disputable comment, indicating my entire debate is sound, due to the fact that I have stipulated over the assurity, just like all my other claims, that what I say has merit. And so, I defend my debate topic, I am Right in all my theology. Because my comments are stiipulations** ahh you see! Flawless." The more I read, the more I get the feeling that I am being trolled.

Your turn.

P.S. If you are in fact a troll, just write "forfeit" in the next round in order to save everyone some time.
Debate Round No. 3
GoOrDin

Pro

The Undebatable Fact:

God is without clear definition: What God's definition does include however, is that He is in everything and everything is within him: This statement is true for another thing. The Universe. as the Universe is a union of all things in reality. Even the Notion-verse is in reality, because by these things having the potential to be imagined they exist As 'the conceivable'. All essences of Reality; beauty, fear: exist as a part of both the manifest and unmanifest existence of the Universe, and these things to are in God.
Although God may or may not be what you perceive to be what you are arguing about, By Definition All these things are inside him and he is inside them as well. Never claiming to know who God is or where his limits lie, He factually IS, Everything.
And as the cosmos is self aware, for every reaction has a cause, and energies permit a map to be illustrated to measure the movement and potential of all matter, The Universe is all knowing. As well as being stable, in it's state of providing abundant amounts of stimulation and joys, indicating the Universe is loving.
God is because the very word of his existence is not one of a debatable nature.
-Notice I am not debating to support Judaism or Christianity, or Hinduism, or another, but the actual entity of God, who's voice with which hie communicates with the worlds is unspecified.
There are moralities. And these moralities, as is the founding laws of physics in our world, are wise matters. The self aware universe has but one primorial substance, Wisdom, for had the beginning been different the Physical make up of the world would not be as such, Perfect in it's scientific foundations. And so Wisdom(Jesus, the Light of the World), the son of God is factual as well.

[b]"However we can stipulate it is very easy to see that planets and moons orbit in a vortex, which is governed by the energies pools, leaving a path of least resistance for them to take."[i] It is very easy to stipulate anything, the hard part is to demonstrate the truth of those stipulations (which you have not done).[/b][/i]
This is the same method by which scientists found all the theories they claim are facts, when they say Gravity is the factual cause of our observations.
Burncastle

Con

Burncastle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
GoOrDin

Pro

As of yet no information contrary to my own arguments has been provided to Prove me wrong.
BurnCastle has yet to indicate with proofs or facts that I am Wrong.
Burncastle

Con

Burncastle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
but nothing could be disproven.
Posted by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
I feel bad that Con wasted his time on this debate. It sounds almost as though GoOrDin was high when he wrote his answers, what with the bad grammar and punctuation, and the baloney he calls arguments.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
No, that's not a rebuttal. When one participant fails to acknowledge the actual content of the debate, arrogantly disregarding without even considering hey are the ones who are ill informed. that stands to support his opponent. I'll post my rebuttal later.
Posted by Burncastle 2 years ago
Burncastle
If you want to make that your rebuttal, then post it in the argument section.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
Well Burncastle, you are quite interesting.

In mythology:All mythologies, one God created all things without the help of another. that is monotheism, because all other deities are gods, not God.
Chaos<greek, father of Odin<norse, Krishna<hindu.

when all religions support eachother, this does serve as evidence in support of Theism and my views, because, throughout the entire history of humanity we all agreed God had contact with humanity, and not as an alien, but as a divine entity of heavenly solace. That supports creation as much as anything has ever supported evolution.

Christianity, is in fact not contradicted by any other religion. Not even Islam, which says repeatedly in the Quran to respect Christianity, Only stating, "And yet they say, God the All-seeing and merciful has taken for himself a son." followed by no suggestion it isn't so. repeatedly..
In fact, as Christians the bible states other deities descended from heaven and so all mythology supports Christianity, not only in philosophy but history.

Creation, is in fact, if u take the time to look it up yourself, factual. I did not recite creation, I illustrated it.
light is energy, which is the movement of matter, and thus time. sky and water are both the same chemical compound. The earth expanding is factually evident. and plants coming fro the dirt after the energy can't go back into the water because it is full, is logical. The energy then goes to space, clings to itself, gathers the moon in a vortex, continues... etc..

and babel, is described to be exactly where geologically it must have been. Near the Ganges and Himalayans. the Himalayans being clearly evident, to have formed when the planet pried open from the Chinese mountain, the Axis of the Planet. I haven't found data on the Axis since It appeared on Tv years ago,... that's a rough issue for me. I want access to those records giving it that name.

but all my debate was logical. you didn't read it before starting to typing your
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
likely
Posted by Burncastle 2 years ago
Burncastle
Will you be able to do it on time?
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
do not wait for me. This argument will take me a long time to write.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
GoOrDinBurncastleTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited the last two rounds which is rarely acceptable behavior in any debate setting. S&G - Tie. Neither made any major spelling or grammatical errors. Arguments - Con. Pro presented arguments without any real proofs to justify his position and claims. Con was able to provide rebuttals to each of Pro's points, whereas Pro failed to present any counter arguments against Con's challenges. Normally I would automatically award argument points to Pro since Con forfeited a few rounds but honestly his forfeits still didn't outweigh the poor arguments presented by Pro. For these reasons, Con wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate. If Pro was trolling, good job, you chased him off. Next time, at-least make some coherent troll arguments or provide some evidence for your claims. If you would have done that, I'm sure you would have taken arguments in this one. Best of luck to you both in the future.