The Instigator
JCDenton12345
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Secular_Mike
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Is God real

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
Secular_Mike
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 341 times Debate No: 63332
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

JCDenton12345

Pro

I'm on the pro side I think God exist because who else could make the universe the big bang is not truthful because it is basically some bang happened and nothing made something and then all this stuff magically appears really tell me why you don't believe
Secular_Mike

Con

Since this debate is only 2 rounds and Pro made somewhat of an opening, I’ll use the first round not for acceptance, but as a debate round. Due to the 4000 character limitation I will not be able to be as detailed as I’d like.




The first mistake Pro made was to ask the question, “who else could make the universe?” I should clarify that I am assuming this is a question since no punctuation was used, but it’s the only context that makes sense. The mistake is in the word “who”. Pro is presupposing that the creation of the universe was created by an intelligence. I think the proper question would be “what”? The rest of Pro’s argument is nonsensical discourse. Pro makes the claim that a well established fact is false when he/she called The Big Bang Theory untrue. Pro follows that statement with an inaccurate description of what the Big Bang Theory demonstrates. The fact that Pro’s only case for the existence of God is based on scientific ignorance that entails an erroneous description of The Big Bang Theory shows a lack of credibility of his/her argument.



I must point out Pro’s incredible case of special pleading. He/she falsely claims that TBBT is nothing making something, and that all matter magically appears. That’s not what TBBT asserts, but even if it did it would not be proof of God’s existence. If anything, it would raise more questions? Where did God come from? Did nothing make him? How did he create everything? Is magic an acceptable explanation in this case? All of these questions must be answered for his/her argument to hold any weight.




To be completely honest, it was hard to decipher Pro’s opening statement, but I interpret the very last part as a direct request for why I do not believe in God. If I’m wrong please correct me, but the way I read it is “tell me why you don’t believe.” It is not necessary for me to answer this, as it does not pertain to the resolution but I will comply anyway. There is insufficient evidence for any deity existing. My default mindset is that of skepticism. I believe it’s the logical starting point when seeking the truth. I could elaborate on this in more detail, but it is not the topic that we are debating.




Pro has the burden of proof. He/she made the positive claim, so positive evidence is warranted. There clearly was no evidence in Pro’s opening statement. Pro used his/her lack of understanding of TBBT and used “God” as the only other possible alternative. It’s the god of the gaps fallacy. ‘I do not know; therefore God.’ Pro did not use any sources and I do not feel compelled to either.

Debate Round No. 1
JCDenton12345

Pro

JCDenton12345 forfeited this round.
Secular_Mike

Con

Extend arguments. It looks like Pro has FF without fulfilling the BOP.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by jacob15 2 years ago
jacob15
god is real
Posted by Dheu 2 years ago
Dheu
Wouldn't you consider god being made from nothing then?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
JCDenton12345Secular_MikeTied
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: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
JCDenton12345Secular_MikeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I actually agree with Pro, not Con, but Pro did not make a solid, fact-based, debatable argument. So I'll give this one to Con despite disagreeing with Con's viewpoint.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
JCDenton12345Secular_MikeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Wasn't a very difficult debate. Con intelligently rebutted Pro's flawed arguments. Since Pro was unable to uphold his BoP, the debate goes to Con. Conduct to Con for Pro's forfeiture. Neither side used sources. Pro's arguments were largely unintelligible because of a conspicuous absence of punctuation, and so S&G points go to Con.