The Instigator
Esiar
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Proving_a_Negative
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Is It Reasonable To Believe In God?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Proving_a_Negative
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/4/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 593 times Debate No: 69447
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

Esiar

Pro

Round 1: Acceptance + Reason (Not proof) you don't think God exists.
Round 2-4: Rebuttals
Round 5: Rebutals & Conclusion

Rules:
-If the Bible is qouted from, use the KJV.
-No insults.
-Don't call anything wrong without giving a reason why it is wrong.

----------------------------------
The burden of proof is on no one. This isn't to prove that God does or doesn't exist, but to give a reason as to why Theism or Atheism is a more reasonable position.
Proving_a_Negative

Con

It is more reasonable to be an atheist than to be a theist. There are three main topics I will cover that are at the heart of this conversation: the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin of humans.

The Origin of the Universe
---------------------------
The big bang serves as our best explanation. There are many variations of the big bang so I will describe the one I tend to agree with the most. The universe is in a cycle of expanding and then contracting, over and over again. What started this cycle? Scientists don't really know. However, we don't know how "nothing" behaves. We are going to assume that before the universe came into existence, there was nothing. What is nothing? Nothing is absence of space, matter, energy, time, and the laws of physics. Have we ever seen how nothing behaves at all? No. Who knows what it is capable of? Okay, this may seem far fetched when I say it. Look at this quote from Stephen Hawking. "Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down." No laws of physics could mean random generation of matter, space, energy, time, and laws of physics. What are the odds that all the laws of physics were exactly right for sustaining life? Incredibly small. Just one constant, gravity, had to be extremely precise to allow our galaxy to be what it is. If the gravitational constant was slightly greater, we would have almost nothing but black holes. If it was slightly smaller, everything would be too far spread out leading to the heat death of the universe. Does this show we have a creator what meticulously designed it perfectly? No. We haven't seen all the times when the laws of physics weren't capable of sustaining life. The universe could have gone this cycle googleplex times and this might be the very first time that life could exist. What is the evidence of the big bang? The existence of background radiation. The absolutely devastating force of the big bang was predicted to leave the exact amount of radiation that we see in space today after billions of years. Everything is expanding. We can see this from the redshift in galaxies. There is more if needed.

Abiogenesis
------------
First of all, we need a planet with the right conditions. With 100-400 billion planets in our galaxy alone (quick google search) and with about 100 billion galaxies in our universe (another google search), there was bound to be at least 1 habitable planet. What is the recipe for life? We need proteins, carbohydrates, nucleic acids, water, and lipids for a primitive cell. In the environment, we need water, a source of energy, and a temperature range that would allow all three states of water to exist. How do we get proteins, carbohydrates, nucleic acids, and lipids? Since earth did have a perfect starting environment (we can assume this since there is indeed life on earth), then we can form the monomers that make up said organic molecules. The Miller-Urey experiment provides the best explanation as to how we formed the monomers. He was able to produce a wide range of organic molecules in an early earth atmosphere. What good is it if all the monomers are great distances apart from each other? Well, that is where the lipids come in. Lipids will spontaneously group up in a pattern as to minimize contact with water in the hydrophobic section of the molecule. When enough of these group up, they form the cell membrane. The cell membrane can group up all the other needed molecules for life. They are permeable to only certain molecules, but they have mechanisms to allow all the needed organic molecules to enter. Given enough time, you will have all the ingredients for life grouped together. If it is needed, there will be more on this topic. Keep in mind, this is still one of the biggest questions in modern biology. Scientists are still wondering how it occured.

Evolution
---------
Macroevolution is the changing of one species into another. This probably occurs due to random mutations. Most mutations are harmful to a species, but that effect is null. When there is a beneficial mutation, it quickly dominates the previous species through natural selection. What evidence do we have? We have countless fossils that show gradual change over millions of years. Check some out on the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History website. Most people accept that evolution has occured and still is today. If you would like to argue about it be my guest. There is plenty of evidence for macroevolution.

Conclusion
-----------
We have evidence. Now I want some to justify your belief in god. If science can't explain something right now, that doesn't mean that god did it. It simply means that we don't know yet.

Sources
--------
1. http://www.hawking.org.uk...
2. Bada, Jeffrey L., and Antonio Lazcano. "Prebiotic Soup--Revisiting the Miller Experiment." Science 300.5620 (2003): 745-746.
3. http://humanorigins.si.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
Esiar

Pro

The Origin of the Universe

The Big Bang doesn't give a reason to believe God doesn't exist, it simply gives a reason for believing that God is not needed for the Universe to exist.

But, It's absolutely silly to believe we came from nothing. While whatever started the Big Bang would have to be without Space, Matter, Energy, and Time, why couldn't something exist outside of those things, since it obviously couldn't be bound by any of those things? This goes into the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I'll qoute myself[1]:

-Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
It has never been observed otherwise, and it is illogical to say things can begin to exist without a cause.

-The Universe has a beginning.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the expansion of the Universe show that the Universe had a beginning.

-Therefore, the Universe has a cause.
The first two premises are correct, thus this conclusion is correct.

The cause of this Universe, whatever it may be, must exist outside the boundaries set in the Universe, which include: Time, Matter, and Logic.

Therefore, the cause of the Universe is timeless (Eternal & Unchanged), matterless (Immaterial), and not bound by logic, meaning it can do things that are both logical and illogical (Omnipotent).

The cause of the Universe is: Eternal, Unchanged, Immaterial, Omnipotent, and could be Omniscient and Omnipresent (Since the cause is omnipotent, the cause can be those things as well)

The cause also must be personal, based on the rules of Cause & Effect. If something impersonal, eternal, and unchangeble is the cause of something, then the effect should also be eternal and unchangeable. This means that an Impersonal thing cannot be the cause of the Universe, because we know the Universe has a beginning, and is subject to change (A personal being with free-will does not apply to this: They can, out of their own will, spontaneously create a new effect without prior determining conditions, since they are omnipotent. If you were to say a Personal being would also apply to what I said about an impersonal cause, then a finite Universe wouldn't exist right now: Since neither a personal nor impersonal thing could cause the Universe in that case).

Something is either personal or it isn't: There is no middle ground. Since the cause of the Universe logically cannot be impersonal, the cause must logically be personal.

The eternal, unchangeable, immaterial, omnipotent cause of the Universe must be a personal being. God is defined as an eternal, unchangeble, immaterial, omnipotent, personal cause of the Universe, and the cause of the Universe must have those attributes, therefore, God exists.

Abiogenesis
If Scientist are still wondering how it occurred, how is this even a decent argument?

Evolution
Similar to the Big Bang, Macro-evolution gives no reason to be an Atheist, it only gives a reason to not interpret/believe the Bible in a literal sense.

You'd have to explain a few things:
Give an instance where a beneficial mutation has ever happened.
Explain why the dating methods for the fossils are accurate.
Explain why the Fossils don't just prove deformed people and animals existed (I.e., explain why it cannot be interpreted like that, and/or why Evolution is a more reasonable interpretation of it.)

Conclusion
To say "If science can't explain something right now, that doesn't mean that god did it. It simply means that we don't know yet." is very silly. That would mean that God is the best explanation as of now, and you have faith Science will explain something in the future.

Imagine if I said, "Just because Creationists can't give ultimate Scientific proof that God exists, it doesn't mean God didn't create us. It simply means they haven't found the answer yet." (I don't agree with this by the way). That's how you sound to me.
--------------------------------
[1] - http://www.debate.org...;
Proving_a_Negative

Con

Seeing how you provided only one philosophical argument for the god's existence, I will focus on that and my counter rebuttal.

Cosmological Argument Fallacy
--------------------------------------------
Check out this website for more details:http://atheism.wikia.com...

This is me simply reiterating what they have already said on this topic.
Premise 1: Every event has a cause.
Premise 2: It is impossible to have an infinite regress.
Premise 3: There exists some first uncaused cause.

From premise 1 and 3 it follows that event 1 caused event 2 and continues in an infinite regress.
We know that one premise must therefore be false.

Anyways, you like to call the first uncaused cause "god" but I like to leave it as it is, an uncaused cause.
The actual definition of god is the following. Also trying to argue "semantics" is pointless. In the comments before the debate began, I clearly outlined the definition of god, something that you failed to do in the details of the debate.
  1. 1.
    (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
    synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More
  2. 2.
    (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
    "a moon god"
    synonyms: deity, goddess, divine being, celestial being, divinity, immortal, avatar
    "sacrifices to appease the gods"
Let me point out some things in this definition that really stand out to me. For the Christian definition, "creator and ruler of the universe", "source of all moral authority", "supreme being." Can we see these attributes from the uncaused cause? I think not. Calling the uncaused cause "god" would be acceptable if the meaning behind the word "god" wasn't skewed.

The Silliness of my Argument
------------------------------------------
Check out what Pro has to say about my argument:

"But, It's absolutely silly to believe we came from nothing. While whatever started the Big Bang would have to be without Space, Matter, Energy, and Time, why couldn't something exist outside of those things, since it obviously couldn't be bound by any of those things?"

Let me rephrase that statement:

"I don't agree with you, therefore you are wrong. Couldn't god have done it?"

My response:

Take note that the laws of physics was left out in the definition of nothing. It's as if I made a valid point, but Pro wanted to cover it up to fit his own argument. Instead of asking "why couldn't something exist..." ask "why WOULD something exist..." Give evidence to support your argument. Also, yes god could have done it. I don't deny that. Why should we believe this though? Again, all I want is some valid evidence.

Abiogenesis
-----------------
I feel as though you were lazy with this argument. One sentence doesn't refute all the work many scientists have done to get this far. Let me point out why this argumentent is indeed SILLY. Take the theory of gravity for example. Scientists don't know what causes gravity or how it works. There is a very interesting theory, gravitons. However, I am no expert in this so I will digress. What am I getting at? Since we don't know how gravity works, there is a need for change. I propose that instead of teaching students about gravity, we teach them what I like to call "god's tendency to push mass together." We also don't really know what makes up mass either, so I need to change that also (again there is a theory, the string theory). Now let's call it "god's tendency to push the god particles that make up mass together." Hopefully you see the point.

Evolution
--------------
The scientific community would be overjoyed to find a beneficial mutation. Besides adaptations, we haven't observed macroevolution. We have observed plenty of mutations, however none have been beneficial. The odds are we won't observe any beneficial mutation. Why? The theory of evolution is no older than the book "On the Origin of Species" which was published in 1859. This means that it is about 156 years old. Life originated on this planet approximately 3.5 billion years ago (that is a rather small estimate mind you. Also I got the number from source number 2.) To fully understand the scale of this, let's say life began at the beginning of a 24 hour day. Evolution was theorized approximately 3.851 milliseconds before the next day. I rounded that number up to help you as much as I could. Also, keep in mind that we are only able to observe so many organisms at one time. There are countless billions of different living creatures on the earth at any given moment. What am I saying? It would be a surprise if WE DID see a beneficial mutation. It would mean that evolution is occuring at a much faster rate than assumed before. We want to see this because we are trying to prove our theories wrong as much as possible. It furthers our understanding of the earth.

Why are dating methods for fossils accurate? Check out what this website has to say:

Accuracy of dating

Dating in geology may be relative or absolute. Relative dating is done by observing fossils, as described above, and recording which fossil is younger, which is older. The discovery of means for absolute dating in the early 1900s was a huge advance. The methods are all based on radioactive decay:

Fossils may be dated by calculating the rate of decay of certain elements.
  • Certain naturally occurring elements are radioactive, and they decay, or break down, at predictable rates.
  • Chemists measure the half-life of such elements, i.e., the time it takes for half of the radioactive parent element to break down to the stable daughter element. Sometimes, one isotope, or naturally occurring form, of an element decays into another, more stable form of the same element.
  • By comparing the proportions of parent to daughter element in a rock sample, and knowing the half-life, the age can be calculated.
Older fossils cannot be dated by carbon-14 methods and require radiometric dating.

Scientists can use different chemicals for absolute dating:

  • The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.
  • Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.
Scientists can check their accuracy by using different isotopes.

The first radiometric dates, generated about 1920, showed that the Earth was hundreds of millions, or billions, of years old. Since then, geologists have made many tens of thousands of radiometric age determinations, and they have refined the earlier estimates. A key point is that it is no longer necessary simply to accept one chemical determination of a rock’s age. Age estimates can be cross-tested by using different isotope pairs. Results from different techniques, often measured in rival labs, continually confirm each other.

There is only a 1% chance of error with current dating technology.

Every few years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so.

To see more check out: http://www.actionbioscience.org...

How doesn't this just prove that deformed humans and animals existed? Actually, this is exactly what it proves. At the time though, they weren't deformed. What we see as normal could be deformed in a few million years.

Conclusion
---------------

You brought up one philosophical argument for god. This is the cosmological argument. I see that as your only evidence for god as of right now, which I just refuted. For the majority of your argument, you were trying to say that our viewpoints are flawed. I can't agree more. Science doesn't know everything. We just have evidence. Please try again.

Sources
-------------
1. http://atheism.wikia.com...
2. http://www.lpi.usra.edu...
3. http://www.actionbioscience.org...

Bonus: My math in case you question the integrity of it:
(Some of this calculation was completely unnecessary, I just kept it in because it was interesting to me personally.)
3500000000-156=3499999844
3499999844/3500000000=.9999999554
(24)(.9999999554)=23.99999893
24-23.99999893=1.069714 E-6
(1.069714 E-6)(60^2)=.0038509704
(.0038509704)(1000)=3.8509704
Round up to 3.851 milliseconds
Debate Round No. 2
Esiar

Pro

Cosmological Argument "Fallacy"
Firstly, you gave a source to an Atheist website, which says: "One can argue that the conclusion "God is the first cause" contradicts the premise "everything has a cause", and that the first cause argument is therefore self-contradictory."

This is a misunderstanding of the argument. The argument is that, everything that begins to exist has a cause, not that everything that exists has a cause. If you go a little deeper into the argument, it points out that, since God created time, he exists outside of it, and is therefore eternal. Since God is eternal, he has no beginning. Since he has no beginning, he does not require a cause, but has always existed.

"From premise 1 and 3 it follows that event 1 caused event 2 and continues in an infinite regress.
We know that one premise must therefore be false."

Since an infinite regress is impossible, we must therefore conclude that there must be an uncaused cause.

"Let me point out some things in this definition that really stand out to me. For the Christian definition, "creator and ruler of the universe", "source of all moral authority", "supreme being." Can we see these attributes from the uncaused cause? I think not. Calling the uncaused cause "god" would be acceptable if the meaning behind the word "god" wasn't skewed."

Why can't the cause be the source of all moral authority? The cause is omnipotent.

Con's Argument
"Let me rephrase that statement: "I don't agree with you, therefore you are wrong. Couldn't god have done it?""

Take my argument as I said it, don't reword it to fit your assumptions. I was saying, "Why does it have to be nothing? Why can't it be a thing or being that exists outside of time, space, and energy?"

"Take note that the laws of physics was left out in the definition of nothing. It's as if I made a valid point, but Pro wanted to cover it up to fit his own argument. Instead of asking "why couldn't something exist..." ask "why WOULD something exist... Give evidence to support your argument. Also, yes god could have done it. I don't deny that. Why should we believe this though? Again, all I want is some valid evidence."
Firstly, I missed the part about physics. Secondly, if God could have done it, how does that make belief in God unreasonable?

Abiogenesis
I didn't see the point your example was trying to make, but I do understand what you are saying as a whole. How about, give proof that Abiogenesis has happened.

Evolution
Beneficial Mutatiosn - If it has never been observed to happen, I have to reason to believe it has and/or will happen.

Dating Methods - "Dating in geology may be relative or absolute. Relative dating is done by observing fossils, as described above, and recording which fossil is younger, which is older. The discovery of means for absolute dating in the early 1900s was a huge advance. The methods are all based on radioactive decay: Fossils may be dated by calculating the rate of decay of certain elements."

Can you please explain how the decay rates help determine how old something is? This would only be possible if you could discover the best possible conditions for things. I heard an example somewhere that went along the lines of this - If measure a candle, and discover it is 6 inches, and that the rate of its burning is one inch an hour, how can you determine when the candle was lit?

Deformed animals - "How doesn't this just prove that deformed humans and animals existed? Actually, this is exactly what it proves. At the time though, they weren't deformed. What we see as normal could be deformed in a few million years."

This sounds a lot like circular logic to me. You have to assume Evolution is true to say that they are only deformed by today's standards, and they weren't considered deformed at that time. Then you use it as proof for Evolution.

Conclusion
I don't see how the Cosmological Argument was refuted, so I guess Con will just answer my questions. For all of my arguments, I have said your view points were flawed, and gave a reason why I think so. To me, the only error that I made is what I said about Abiogenesis in Round 2.

Proving_a_Negative

Con

Cosmological Argument "Rebuttal" to Fallacy

"Why can't the cause be the source of all moral authority? The cause is omnipotent."

Again, instead of "why can't..." your question should be "why should..." We then get a claim not backed up with any evidence. How do we know that this cause is omnipotent? Also I have a problem with accepting that anything could be omnipotent. Answer this question for me in your next response. Can god make a rock so big he couldn't life it?

"I was saying, 'Why does it have to be nothing? Why can't it be a thing or being that exists outside of time, space, and energy?'"

No that isn't what you asked. But, to avoid arguing about nonsense, let's assume that those were your exact words. It doesn't have to be nothing. There could be a thing or being that exists outside of time, space, and energy?'" However, it is unreasonable to believe such a thing exists since there is no evidence. It is indeed a hypothesis, just like my invisible magical space unicorns. Could such unicorns exist? Surprisingly yes. Is there any reason to believe such? No. Believing that god was the first cause is just like believing in Russell's cosmic teapot.


"I missed the part about physics."

Yes you did. I would classify that as a very large mistake.

Abiogenesis

"How about, give proof that Abiogenesis has happened."

I have a feeling that everything I have been saying has gone right over your head. Again, I can only give evidence for it. I cannot ultimately prove that it did happen. One can't prove gravity either. It's all about what has evidence and what doesn't. I haven't seen repeatable, quality, concrete, and abundant evidence to support god creating all living creatures. If you want to see my evidence, go back to my opening argument.

Evolution

"Beneficial Mutatiosn [Note the spelling error wasn't me.] - If it has never been observed to happen, I have to reason to believe it has and/or will happen."

First of all, mutations occur. Second of all, there are genetic codes that result in a "better" organism. Given enough time, 3.5 billion years, we are likely to get beneficial mutations. Also I would like to welcome you to the world of viruses. Viruses have in fact evolved over time. This also perfectly correlates with the data presented earlier. Viruses have a large chance of mutations and they multiply very quickly. With the very little time we have actually known of viruses, they have actively evolved. Don't believe me? Check out this website: http://viralzone.expasy.org...

"Can you please explain how the decay rates help determine how old something is? This would only be possible if you could discover the best possible conditions for things. I heard an example somewhere that went along the lines of this - If measure a candle [Note that the grammatical error wasn't me.], and discover it is 6 inches, and that the rate of its burning is one inch an hour, how can you determine when the candle was lit?"

Absolutely. Check out this:

Fossils occur in sequences

Fossil sequences were recognized and established in their broad outlines long before Charles Darwin had even thought of evolution. Early geologists, in the 1700s and 1800s, noticed how fossils seemed to occur in sequences: certain assemblages of fossils were always found below other assemblages. The first work was done in England and France.

Fossil hunting began by accident in England around 1800.
  • Around 1800, William Smith in England, who was a canal surveyor, noticed that he could map out great tracts of rocks on the basis of their contained fossils. The sequences he saw in one part of the country could be correlated (matched) precisely with the sequences in another. He, and others at the time, had discovered the first principles of stratigraphy — that older rocks lie below younger rocks and that fossils occur in a particular, predictable order.
Stratigraphy, the study of rock layers, led to paleontology, the study of fossils.
  • Then, geologists began to build up the stratigraphic column, the familiar listing of divisions of geological time — Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary, and so on. Each time unit was characterized by particular fossils. The scheme worked all round the world, without fail.

  • From the 1830s onwards, geologists noted how fossils became more complex through time. The oldest rocks contained no fossils, then came simple sea creatures, then more complex ones like fishes, then came life on land, then reptiles, then mammals, and finally humans. Clearly, there was some kind of ‘progress’ going on.

  • All became clear, of course, in 1859 when Charles Darwin published his “On the origin of species”. The ‘progress’ shown by the fossils was a documentation of the grand pattern of evolution through long spans of time.

Accuracy of the fossils

Fossils prove that humans did not exist alongside dinosaurs.

Since 1859, paleontologists, or fossil experts, have searched the world for fossils. In the past 150 years they have not found any fossils that Darwin would not have expected. New discoveries have filled in the gaps, and shown us in unimaginable detail the shape of the great ‘tree of life’. Darwin and his contemporaries could never have imagined the improvements in resolution of stratigraphy that have come since 1859, nor guessed what fossils were to be found in the southern continents, nor predicted the huge increase in the number of amateur and professional paleontologists worldwide. All these labors have not led to a single unexpected finding such as a human fossil from the time of the dinosaurs, or a Jurassic dinosaur in the same rocks as Silurian trilobites.

Scientists now use phylogeny, mathematics, and other computations to date fossils.

Paleontologists now apply sophisticated mathematical techniques to assess the relative quality of particular fossil successions, as well as the entire fossil record. These demonstrate that, of course, we do not know everything (and clearly never will), but we know enough. Today, innovative techniques provide further confirmation and understanding of the history of life. Biologists actually have at their disposal several independent ways of looking at the history of life - not only from the order of fossils in the rocks, but also through phylogenetic trees.

  • Phylogenetic trees are the family trees of particular groups of plants or animals, showing how all the species relate to each other.

  • Phylogenetic trees are drawn up mathematically, using lists of morphological (external form) or molecular (gene sequence) characters.

  • Modern phylogenetic trees have no input from stratigraphy, so they can be used in a broad way to make comparisons between tree shape and stratigraphy.

  • The majority of test cases show good agreement, so the fossil record tells the same story as the molecules enclosed in living organisms.

Again this comes from: http://www.actionbioscience.org...

Fossils are only found where expected. Nearby rocks and other fossils from the same time periods always have good agreement on age. As we can see, radiometric dating is consistent. Doing it on one fossil isn't good enough. We have done the same test on these fossils multiple times. To claim that radiometric dating is inaccurate would take plenty of evidence to support.

"This sounds a lot like circular logic to me. You have to assume Evolution is true to say that they are only deformed by today's standards, and they weren't considered deformed at that time. Then you use it as proof for Evolution."

Since we see fossils that only have extremely similar qualities to each other for each time period, we can safely assume that this was the norm. Check out the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History to check out the fossils yourself. Therefore, without assuming evolution is true, we see can say this. Then we use it as evidence to support evolution.

Rule Breaking Argument

Rule number 3 states that, "Don't call anything wrong without giving a reason why it is wrong." I would like to argue that Pro's statement broke this rule. Here is the statement: "But, It's absolutely silly to believe we came from nothing." He never gave proper evidence to back up that claim. I believe points should be deducted. Pro will probably argue some semantics regarding the word "silly." Voters, don't let that change your opinion. It's up for you to decide.

Conclusion

I want evidence god exists. So far, you have spent the majority of your time arguing that my position doesn't have quality evidence. You on the other hand don't have evidence. It is unreasonable to believe in god without any evidence. Try again.

Sources

I tried to fix all the font sizes in this rebuttal. However, no matter how hard I try, I can't make all the font correct. I am trying to make titles 12pt and this text 10pt. The normal text likes to randomly convert back into 12pt font. I'm not sure if it will actually do this when I submit but the preview looks really messy.

1. http://viralzone.expasy.org...
2. http://www.actionbioscience.org...
3. http://www.mnh.si.edu...;
Debate Round No. 3
Esiar

Pro

I'm going to drop the other arguments, since they don't really show that belief in God is not reasonable, as the subject of the debate says. It's not that I don't want to address them, but that should be for another debate.

Kalam
What you said doesn't prove the argument wrong in the slighest. The argument would be the proof that a being exists outside of time, matter, and logic, for example, thus you couldn't ask proof as to why a being like that could exist.


But, I think the argument is wrong now that I think about it anyway (Read Round 2: http://www.debate.org...). So your refutations are useless.

Since that argument doesn't prove God, I will bring different arguments:

Argument 1 - Science in the Bible
The Bible said the Earth was circular hundreds of years before it was dicovered - Isaiah 40:22 (There was no Hebrew word for Sphere, thus saying it teaches a flat Earth would be just as accurate as me saying it teaches a Spherical Earth.)

The Bible said the Earth hangs upon nothing thousands of years before it was dicovered - Job 26:7

That wind blows in cyclones - Ecclesiastes 1:6

That blood is the source of life - Leviticus 17:11

That Oceans have springs - Job 38:16

Argument 2 - Prophecy In The Bible
Isaiah 66:7-9 says - "Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child. Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children. Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the Lord: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God."

This perfectly fits when the Modern State of Israel was established in 1948. You could say people self-fulfilled it according to their interpretation to make it look real, but you cannot prove it was anyone's agenda to do that. You'd have to assume they had that agenda, therefore he logical position would be to not believe it.

Argument 3 - God Could Have Done It
It's possible a God made us. It isn't a "crime" to logic to believe in God. Therefore belief in God is not silly.
Proving_a_Negative

Con

The Reasonableness of a Belief in God

The word reasonable is defined as:
  1. 1.
    (of a person) having sound judgment; fair and sensible.
    "no reasonable person could have objected"
    synonyms: sensible, rational, logical, fair, fair-minded, just, equitable; More
  2. 2.
    as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate.
    "a police officer may use reasonable force to gain entry"
    synonyms: within reason, practicable, sensible; More
Does your belief in god meet this criteria? Let's evaluate. A person who is reasonable will have sound judgement, fair, and sensible. Let's judge between just these 2 theories: atheism and theism. We can determine that whichever has the most convincing evidence will be the winner. If you don't pick that side, you are unreasonable. Let's compare the 2.

Theism (at best)
2000 year old book called, "The Bible"

Atheism
Evolution: Countless Fossils, Virus Evolution, Radiometric Dating, Age of the Earth
Abiogenesis: Miller Experiment, Lipid Bilayer, Likelihood of a Suitable Planet
Creation of the universe: Red Shift of Galaxies, Background Radiation, Abundance of Elements

I guess the voters will decide.

Cosmological Argument

Pro has admitted that the cosmological argument does not provide evidence that god exists. Case closed.

The Bible's Contradictions

I am going to point out a lot of contradictions to show how ill incredible the Bible is.

Exodus 15:3 "The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name."
Romans 15:33 "Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen."

Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."
Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,"

Matthew 28:1 "In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre."
Mark 16:1 "And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him."
John 20:1 "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre."

John 10:30 "I and my Father are one."
John 14:28 "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."

Genesis 1:25 "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
Genesis 2:18 "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." Genesis 2:19 "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

1 Kings 4:26 "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen."
2 Chronicles 9:25 "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem."

Proverbs 4:7 "Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding."
Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow."
1 Corinthians 1:19 "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

Isaiah 14:21 "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities."
Deuteronomy 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

Genesis 1:20 "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."
Genesis 1:21 "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
Genesis 2:19 "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

Numbers 12:3 "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth."
Numbers 31:14, 17, 18 "And Moses was wroth... And Moses said unto them, "Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman, ... But all the women children ... keep alive for yourselves."

Psalms 92:12 "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."
Isaiah 57:1 "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

Matthew 27:46,50 "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
Luke 23:46 "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
John 19:30 "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

Want to see more? Check out this website: http://infidels.org...

Note: I checked the first few to make sure that they were the KJV of the Bible, and they were. The latter ones may not be. I didn't feel the need to check them all. A few should suffice.

From creation to Jesus's last words, the Bible is full of contradictions. How can we take anything in it seriously?

Omnipotence

God claims to be omnipotent in the Bible.
Here are 41 passages where god claims omnipotence: http://www.openbible.info...
Now answer these questions. Can god make a rock so big he couldn't lift it? Can god sin? Can god take away his own powers yet still be all powerful? Can god take away his powers? Can god create a married bachelor? (I got that idea from you.) Next time, don't ignore them.

Note: These passages are not in KJV format. I didn't quote them.

The Bible claims Inerrancy

God claims that the Bible is inerrant.
Here are 53 passages where god claims inerrancy: http://www.openbible.info...
If you deny that all of these passages are true since the Bible can be interpreted as "figuratively" it may as well be Swiss cheese at this point. This is also known as cherry picking. Have fun fixing all the contradictions in the Bible and explaining omnipotence to us.

Note: These passages are not in KJV format. I didn't quote them.

For the Record

Even if the Bible did predict that the earth was a sphere and all the other scientific wonders you claimed, it doesn't mean anything. It shows us that the people who wrote the Bible were right about that topic. This by no means translates to "well god must be real then." Take Einstein for example. He made absolutely ginormous contributions to the field of science, however he isn't automatically correct in what he says. People today challenge many of his theories.

Sources

1. http://infidels.org...
2. http://www.openbible.info...
3. http://www.openbible.info...

Debate Round No. 4
Esiar

Pro

The Reasonableness of a Belief in God
1) If you could show why Atheism is a reasonable position, that doesn't necessarily mean Theism isn't. For example, if someone goes to the store, and people are wondering what they bought, if it is reasonable to believe they bought water, it isn't necessarily unreasonable to believe they bought chips.

2) Again, Evolution & Abiogenesis don't show that Theism is not unreasonable, thus not refuting my argument.

Bible "Contradictions"
Exodus 15:3 & Romans 15:33 - This is speaking in two different senses. It doesn't mean that God is only a God of war or only a God of peace, it means he is both. A God of war when judging the wicked, and a God of peace when people repent and turn to God.

Matthew 1:16 & Luke 3:23 - They are not tracing the exact same line. It's the same from Adam/Abraham to David, but from there Matthew traces from Solomon's line and Luke from Nathan's line. The most reasonable explanation is that Matthew traces from Joseph's line, and Luke traces from Mary's line, and calls Heli the father of Joseph since the lines were traced from the father then (Not that Joseph was the father of Jesus).

Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1, & John 20:1 - These aren't even contradictions. A contradiction is defined as,[1] "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.". They all agree that Mary Magdalene came, none of them deny Mary the mother of James came, and none of them deny Salome came. This would only be a contradiction, if, for example, the Gospel of John said Mary Magdalene was the only one there.

John 10:30 & 14:28 - Jesus is one with the Father in one sense, and the Father is greater than him in another sense. The context of John 14 (Mainly John 14:8-11) shows this, and it shows that it doesn't contradict John 10:30.

Genesis 1:25, 1:26, & 2:18 - Genesis 2:18 is only talking about the Garden of Eden. It isn't saying that God created the animals then.

1 Kings 2:46 & 2 Chronicles 9:25 - Solomon had forty thouand stalls of Horses FOR his Chariots, and four thousand stalls for Horses AND Chariots.

Proverbs 4:7, Ecclesiastes 1:18 & 1 Corinthians 1:19 - 1) Just because wisdom causes grief and sorrow, it does not mean it isn't beneficial. It's a long-term benefit. 2) Read the context of the passage 1 Corinthians 1:19 is quoting (Isaiah 29:10-14). It's not talking about actual wise people, but people who think they are wise, who are hypocrites.

Deuteronomy 24:16 & Isaiah 14:21 - The law in Deuteronomy is for the Israelites. not the Babylonian people (Isaiah 14 is a prophecy about the destruction of Babylon).

Genesis 1:20, 1:21, & 2:19 - Genesis 2:19 is only talking about the Garden of Eden. It isn't saying that God created the animals then.

Numbers 12:3, 31:14, 17, 18 - This one article puts it into words much better than I could - [2]"The questioner falsely assumes that one who is identified as being meek is unable to exercise righteous indignation. Jesus described Himself as being meek (Matthew 11:29), and yet we see Him overturning tables in the temple (Matthew 21:12) on account of the wickedness of the people. If the questioner would consider the context of the statements he gleaned from Numbers 31, he would realize that the people of God had preserved the lives of those who had caused Isarel to commit harlotry and idolatry (v 16). Thus, Moses commanded that they be destroyed, along with the males among them, except the virgin girls. Moses entreated the people to fulfill that which was commanded by God (Numbers 25:16-18). If the meek servant of the Lord does not become enraged with wickedness, he becomes an idle by-stander and a partaker in the wickedness by his inaction. There is no contradiction."

Psalm 92:12 & Isaiah 57:1 - Are you saying that one says that the righteous will not perish, but the other says they do? Thats what it seems like - In that case, the Psalm is speaking in a spiritual sense and Isaiah is speaking in a physical sense.

Matthew 27:46, 50, Luke 23:46, John 19:30 - This is similar to the Tomb case mentioned earlier. None of these make the other impossible.

Omnipotence
I will just qoute myself[3]:

"Omnipotence is the ability to do anything. Anything includes seeing without eyes and being a married bachelor. It is impossible for a human to do these things, since they are bound by the rules of logic, but an omnipotent being is not bound by the rules of logic (If an omnipotent being was bound by logic, it wouldn't even be omnipotent). Therefore an omnipotent being can do those things."

I see your point that sinning without sinning sounds absolutely ridiculous, but if you are trying to be logical, you must conclude that an omnipotent being can sin without sinning, since the being has unlimited power, thus meaning they can do that thing.

Science In The Bible
For the point you made to be accurate, you would have to show Scientific inaccuracies in the Bible.

On another note - You never addressed my point on Isaiah 66:7-9.

------------------------------------------------
[1] - Google "Define Contradiction"
[2] - http://www.xmind.net...
[3] - http://www.debate.org...

Proving_a_Negative

Con

The Reasonableness of a Belief in God
A reasonable man will judge both sides of an argument as stated by the definition in round 4 which you did not refute. Let's judge theism and atheism. After this debate, I have concluded that you have no evidence to support your theism. Atheism has all the evidence supporting it as mentioned before. You gave up trying to discredit the evidence supporting atheism so it still stands.

My response to 1) This is an invalid analogy. All options at the store have equal evidence. Perhaps if you found a shopping list, you could say that you suspect he bought all the items on there. That would only be reasonable. It would be unreasonable to say that he bought a bunch of other items with the money. This is how we should look at the evidence that I have given.

My response to 2) Yes it does. See above for an explanation again.

"Rebuttal" to Bible Contradictions
I only posted some of the Bible contradictions. There are still a ton more to be found on the website given earlier. Feel free to give it a peek because I didn't even post half of them. I am not going to go through each of the "explanations" you gave and explain how twisted your perception is on the Bible. I don't feel as though it is worth my time. Most of the explanations he give rely on a literal/figurative interpretation that is used only when needed.

Omnipotence
Pro again avoids the actual questions that I asked directly to him for the second time. The reason is that omnipotence is impossible. It will simply cause way too many paradoxes to happen.

Science in the Bible
I didn't see whatever connection you were trying to make from Isaiah 66:7-9 to Israel. Without explanation you failed to make any sort of point here. Does the Bible make any scientific claims? How can I show the scientific inaccuracies in a book that is supposed to be full of figurative language.

Argument 3 (See Round 4)
Unicorns could have made the universe also. Do you believe in them? This argument has to be my absolute favorite in this entire debate. I am considering making a meme out of it.

Evaluating Sources
Pro has given the worst excuse for sources I have ever seen. He constantly quoted himself. Are you an expert in this topic? Does this even count as a source? That could be a debate in and of itself.

Conclusion
If you have read everything before this then I am honestly surprised you made it this far. Congratulations. Hopefully you guys see how one sided this debate really was. I am the only one who presented evidence that stood its ground. Pro failed again and again to show that belief in god was reasonable. Please put your vote in for Con!
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 1 year ago
Proving_a_Negative
"Quoting yourself is wrong" -Proving_a_Negative
Posted by Esiar 1 year ago
Esiar
@Paleophyte

I see your perspective for most of the debate (although I obviously don't agree), but I don't understand the problem with quoting myself.
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 1 year ago
Proving_a_Negative
I am not going to pull off such a sketchy move.
Posted by Esiar 1 year ago
Esiar
Like a mini-rebuttal. But if you want to go further, don't do it in these comments.
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 1 year ago
Proving_a_Negative
You really posted a rebuttal in the comments?
Posted by Esiar 1 year ago
Esiar
I'll make a post here:

Evidence for Athesim
I already said it wasn't evidence supporting Atheism. One could easily be a Theist and believe Evolution & The Big Bang. Therefore, it doesn't show that Theism is unreasonable.

Omnipotence: I clearly said God could do all of those things, thus answering your direct questions, and I already explained to you that you can't use logical paradoxes to a being that exists outside the bounds of logic. That's what is illogical.

Bible "Contradictions:
I can guarantee it is this: Translation errors, Scribal errors, and obvious reconciliations.

Contradictions shouldn't be reconcilable. I can ones that don't contradict the Bible itself, and can be valid interpretations.

Isaiah 66: It was in the prophecy section.

Argument 3: FSM argument is just illogical. Look at it from this perspective: It is possible that God exists. If one is to believe in God, he has no proof God is a Unicorn.

"Pro has given the worst excuse for sources I have ever seen. He constantly quoted himself. Are you an expert in this topic? Does this even count as a source

My opponent gave no reason to not believe in God (Atheism is the lack of belief in God). The evidence he gave, such as Bible "contradictions", Evolution, and the Big Bang give no one a reason to be an Atheist. Assuming they were true, Deism would be a more reasonable approach.
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 1 year ago
Proving_a_Negative
I completely forgot to mention "argument 3" in my rebuttal. That was the best part in it all. Oh well, I have more for my conclusion.
Posted by Proving_a_Negative 1 year ago
Proving_a_Negative
A rematch? Fine. This time I will argue that evolution, spontaneous generation, and the big bang are more reasonable theories than theism. Also if you want to use the KJV Bible, then you must give evidence to support its validity.

God:
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
synonyms:the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
"a moon god"
synonyms:deity, goddess, divine being, celestial being, divinity, immortal, avatar
"sacrifices to appease the gods"
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 1 year ago
Paleophyte
EsiarProving_a_NegativeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were not outstanding but Pro's were dismal. He managed to throw out his own R2 argument in R3. Then he argues "science" from the Bible. Con successfully demonstrates that the Bible is self-contradictory and that any "science" that might be gleaned from it is entirely coincidental. Pro drops the majority of Con's arguments. Pro cites himself in other debates as a reference.
Vote Placed by Leo.Messi 1 year ago
Leo.Messi
EsiarProving_a_NegativeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Both had good arguments--- but con used better sources, and therefor wins the source column. But it was a good debate-good grammar, and both had good conduct.