The Instigator
FollowJesus
Pro (for)
Tied
5 Points
The Contender
AndyHood
Con (against)
Tied
5 Points

Is there a 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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,148 times Debate No: 73502
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (39)
Votes (2)

 

FollowJesus

Pro

In the first book of the bible (Genesis), there is a detailed description of the creation of not only earth, but universe as a whole. This book points to a superior being (IE God) to creating what we know as the universe. Many feel that through science, there is substantial evidence to prove there is no God. That science is fraudulent and based solely a flimsy and unstable theories. One such theory is the God Particle theory, which argues that a small particle triggered some sort of unimaginable explosion, creating what we know to be the universe. Two questions remain unanswered by this. First, before said explosion, what was there. If there was no universe, which we know to be an infinite idea, what was there. More importantly, what made the God Particle, for it can not simply appear out of nowhere. The topic of creationism is a touchy subject, as religion, as a whole, is a faith based system of ideas. It is true, we can not prove the existence of God and we can not see him. But in the same light, you can not prove the existence of other things as well, such as gravity, which is yet to be seen, nor felt. For gravity, all we know is it may hold us to the ground, when in actuality, we only withhold faith that it will continue to do so. The same pertains to God, faith is what drives proof.
On the topic of creationism, more godly proof lies amongst the theory of evolution. What many fail to realize on the theory of evolution is that there are two different types of evolution. Macro evolution is the scale of evolution which can take a monkey and make it a human. Micro evolution is the scale that can take a bird with a short beak, and give it a long beak to better gather food. Micro evolution does not disprove God, but rather supports him and answers former unanswered questions pertaining to him (IE why do we have different colored skin). Darwinism, which evolutionists solely base there theories on is based on micro evolution rather than macro evolution and there for disproves any comments against a superior being pertaining in the field of darwinism and/or evolution.
AndyHood

Con

I gladly accept the challenge of arguing that there is no God.

SPECIFICALLY, I accept the challenge of arguing that there is no God in the sense that the bible describes (clearly this is the type of god that Pro is arguing for).

Proving that something doesn't exist is nigh-on impossible. So what? Do we have to believe in a Yeti because we have not proven that no such thing exists?

What about the belief that Aliens are already with us and have abducted some people? NOBODY can prove this to be false; one of the troubles here is that proponents of Alien Abductions can (and do) keep moving the goalposts. Consider a conversation that I've just invented:

Alien abduction doubter Adam talks to Alien Abductee Brian:

-------------------------------------------------------
Adam: C'mon, man, if aliens were here, how come we haven't got decent video evidence of UFOs?

Bob: The aliens have advanced technologies and can turn their craft invisible.

Adam: But what if it was raining, wouldn't we see rain collecting on or bouncing off the craft?

Bob: Well, maybe they don't fly in the rain.

Adam: But what if it starts raining when they're flying?

Bob: They have advanced technology, remember? They have better weather forecasts than us.

Adam: Okay, well, why would they want to experiment on people in the first place?

Bob: Obviously, to find out about us.

Adam: Okay, so why not just take a group of humans away to somewhere and study them? Or use some of their advanced technology to study humans in-situ?

Bob: Maybe they have ethical reasons not to take humans away. And maybe their technology is not so advanced that they can do all the experiments they want to do remotely.

Adam: Why don't they reveal themselves to us?

Bob: Because they don't want to upset our civilisation; knowledge of them could impact history in a big way.

Adam: So they messed up with you, letting you into their little secret! Why didn't they wipe your mind or kill you?

Bob: Well, there are ethical reasons for not killing me and maybe they can't wipe my memory.

Adam: Then why not pick people to experiment on who are already, say, lost in a desert?

Bob: Maybe they do... but maybe sometimes they need special subjects.

Adam: You argued that they didn't want us to find out about them, but they risk letting on by taking special subjects? Boy, they must really want to know about us a lot... why? They can't be planning to kill us, according to your argument, because they are deeply moral and don't want to kill people. What are they planning?

Bob: I don't know what they are planning... perhaps they are going to introduce mutations that will advance our civilisation so that we will be ready to deal with the knowledge of their existence and join an intergalactic community... ultimately, though, we can't know thier mysterious, ineffable ways. It's just beyond us...

Adam: Okay, well, it seems to me that, whilst I can't PROVE that aliens don't exist, the number of odd explanations one must accept in order to believe in them are too great for my liking. The fact that you can answer every question that I ask does not convince me. It is suspicious that your explanations become increasingly complex to answer simple questions with the known facts (the only really knowable fact being that we have no facts). In the light of no evidence and increasingly silly arguments, I conclude that there are no aliens here on Earth.
-------------------------------------------------------


Was Adam being reasonable when he came to a personal conclusion that there were no aliens on Earth?

I consider the case for the god of the bible to be roughly equivalent. We have precisely no evidence to suggest that he exists and are faced with increasingly silly arguments to justify the belief. Primarily, it's the sneaky "He doesn't want to reveal Himself" argument that makes me the most suspicious... combined with the fact that arguments with Theists always ends up with some "the mind of God is ineffable" type show-stopper. We are, at some point, asked to stop asking reasonable questions.

Is it unreasonable to ask questions such as:
Why do we have no hard evidence for God?
(Why do we have no hard evidence for alien abductions?)

I challenge Pro to answer this question as best he can... I'll have some follow up questions, of course... I would like the audience to decide whether Pro's answers devolve into the same realm as Bob's answers earlier.

I'm going to pre-empt the most common answer given to the question, to save rounds... please understand that I am not trying to put words in Pro's mouth... if I am wrong about the answer that Pro gives to this question, I'll gladly retract the following argument and address the reality.

Often Theists say that the reason there's no hard evidence for God's existence is that if He revealed Himself to us then we'd have no free will; we wouldn't be able to make the choice to come to Him through the sacred mystery of Faith. One has to do a double-take and point out the hypocrisy of then finding arguments to "prove" He exists (the Cosmological Argument, for instance, or the Argument from Design)... one also has to ask "what about Abram, Moses or Thomas"?

Why (if it's true that God is trying to preserve our fragile free will by not revealing Himself) does he reveal Himself to some people with evidence such as a burning bush or a hole in Jesus' hands?

Why did God not talk to Mother Teresa [1]?

I ask, in the spirit of a good debate: please, Pro, answer these questions:
  1. Why do we have no hard evidence for God?
  2. Why does God give some people hard evidence?
  3. Why did God not give Mother Teresa any evidence?

[1] Reuters article discussing decades of silence from God http://www.reuters.com...
Debate Round No. 1
FollowJesus

Pro

Con makes a valid point. Many religious persons, such as myself, feel that the base of evidence is not on rock hard fact, but rather upon faith. However, there are several valid answers to the questions which con poses.
Why do we have no hard evidence to prove there is a God? That is a complicated question, and the answer may be quite controversial. One such answer is God simply chooses not to give us proof in physical form. That answer is a load of noting, and has no point. I believe, in my belief, that the lord God has given us substantial evidence of his existence through the miraculous works of Christ Jesus. The evidence of Gods existence is all around us from the flowers to the men among us, because all physical items are creations of God.
Why does God give certain people hard evidence? I assume con is referring to those such as moses, whom God reveals himself to. The answer to this question is based solely on faith, so take it as you may. Because we are all sinners and God is perfect, we are unworthy of his presence, and will be so shamed amongst his physical presence, we will be killed. A more practical answer for the realist is that God reveals himself to those whom he knows can not only handle the truth, but spread it to others as well. This is why the majority of the time, you will notice those such as moses and isaih,who are prophets, will be given the evidence of God, as they are prophets and religious leaders who will spread the truth to further the name of God, were as most would use said evidence to further themselves.
As for your question on mother tereassa, I am not educated in the field of religion pertaining to that sector. However, if I were to guess, God had other plans for her. I do know however, that mother terreasa, despite not being given the evidence from God, was a devout relgous woman.
In the spirit of this debate, I have three questions for you:
What would be acceptable evidence to prove the existanc of God?
If you were to die today, what would become of you?
If God was to expose evidence of himself and his existence to you, would you realize it?
AndyHood

Con

I'll begin this round by answering Pro's direct questions before I get started.
    1. What would be acceptable evidence to prove the existence of God?
    2. If you were to die today, what would become of you?
    3. If God was to expose evidence of himself and his existence to you, would you realize it?
I think that question 3 is a little similar to question 1, but it's different enough that I can answer it in a different way, so, here goes:

1. For myself, I'd accept any number of things as evidence for God's existence. If prayer sometimes worked a bit, that would be a good start; but the fact is that it doesn't [1]. I guess that some of the miracles described in the bible would also work for me, but I simply don't believe that the surviving Bronze Age texts we have are accurate accounts of actual events (there was no global flood, etc.).

2. Simple answer: I'd be gone. I do not believe in life after death. I suppose there's an implication in the very posing of the question that this might be a bad thing, somehow... but here's how I see it: there are only two logical possibilities; either I will live for ever or I will not. I do not want to live forever. That doesn't mean I'm ready to lie down and breathe my last right now, but I've no problem with the idea that one day I won't exist; indeed, since I won't exist, I won't be upset about my non-existence... I consider the state of non-existence in terms of "infinite peace". Sounds lovely! I'm not sure that I'm looking forward to the process of going from existence to non-existence, of course, but if I could die peacefully in my sleep I couldn't ask for more.

3. It's a hypothetical question, so I can't be sure but yes, I think that I would recognize God's existence if He decided to make Himself known to me... in fact, I would say that it was an absolute given: if an omnipotent being wished to achieve the goal of demonstrating evidence of themselves, it seems 100% certain that they could achieve this goal... indeed, I would say that this provides the best base from which to ask the question "WHY DOESN'T HE"?

And so we come to Pro's answers to my questions (thanks for the direct answers so far).

I'm afraid that I couldn't really work out what Pro's answer was to my first question: why do we have no hard evidence for God?

Pro seems to waver between "God simply chooses not to give us proof in physical form" and "God has given us substantial evidence of his existence through the miraculous works of Christ Jesus. The evidence of Gods existence is all around us from the flowers to the men among us, because all physical items are creations of God". Neither of these positions answers the question, rather they speak to whether the assumption in the question is true or not! I suppose it's partly my fault for not phrasing the question rigorously enough; I must try harder... so, here's a revised version of the question which I humbly ask Pro to answer:

If God chose to unambiguously reveal Himself to everybody, he could. Why does He not?

Notice that word "everybody"; this neatly circumvents the argument that Pro made that most people would, upon discovering physical proof of God, "use said evidence to further themselves". If God revealed Himself to everybody, this would not be a consideration. Indeed, think of the benefits! There would be no more confusion about religions... no more religious intolerance... no more religious wars... no more loneliness (as Mother Teresa experienced bitterly)... no more doubts as to our purpose... no more doubts about what we should do... the World would clearly be a better place... so, what kind of a swine would a god have to be to stay silent when they could so easily make things better by coming out? I think that the question deserves an answer, especially in light of these considerations:

Why should I believe in aliens that have advanced technology and choose to hide themselves?
Why should I believe in gods who have supernatural powers and choose to hide themselves?

I think it might be time to bring out the Argument From Evil [2]

If anything exists that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent then there can be no evil. Since we observe evil, nothing is simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

Pro: how do you account for this? Do you perhaps think that God is not all-knowing? Perhaps God is not all-powerful? Perhaps God is not all-loving? If you think that God is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving... then you must give an answer as to why God chooses to allow evil to exist. I'd be interested to hear your take on this.

Here's a better way of putting this in the form of a question, the second that I am directly asking Pro to answer:

Does God (or did God) create evil?

I'm now going to introduce a tangential idea; I assume that Pro accepts that the bible is the Word of God. I further assume that Pro thinks that slavery is a pretty wicked and immoral practice. Here are two quotations from the Bible, which we are asked to believe represent an onibenevolent being's laws:

Leviticus 25:44-46 [3]
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life

Exodus 21:20-22 [4]
Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.


Now, I understand that we must consider historical context when dealing with issues such as this... it just wouldn't make sense to judge certain actions of people in the Bronze Age by modern standards... I am not making a judgement about a Bronze Age man who owned slaves here. I do understand that slavery was a ubiquitous thing at the time these words were committed to paper. However, I do see a bit of a problem looming on the horizon when we are asked to accept that the bible represents moral rules laid out by an unchanging, perfectly good, infinitely powerful being... it just doesn't add up!

So, I have a question for my opponent that I would dearly like an honest answer to (I understand that my opponent cannot know the mind of God, but this question does demand an answer... so I want to know what my opponent thinks is the right answer to this troubling question):

Why did God never command "thou shalt not own people"? It would surely have been easy enough... He apparantly said "thou shalt not murder" AND He apparantly said "It's okay to beat your slaves to within an inch of their lives"... I'm dubious, I have to say... my position is that one MUST accept one of the following:

EITHER {1} God does not exist
OR {2} He does not always make moral rules
OR {3} His Word is not always accurately represented in the Bible
OR {4} we are faced with the inevitable idea that beating a slave nearly to death is a morally correct behaviour.

So I ask Pro to either show why one does not have to accept one of these positions or to pick one of {1}, {2}, {3} or {4}.


[1] Prayer doesn't work http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] The Argument From Evil http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] Leviticus https://www.biblegateway.com...
[4] Exodus https://www.biblegateway.com...
Debate Round No. 2
FollowJesus

Pro

Con once again makes several valid points, all of which revolve around two things. These two being the hard evidence of a superior being and the moralities of man. The bible verses in which you use are highly accurate. However, before I continue, note that those specific verses come distinctly from the old testment, which in accordance with christian faith, became invalid, along with its laws upon the coming of Christ Jesus. Think of it this way. In the early days of America, slavery dominated the country. However, as time passed and men such as Abraham Lincoln came, the slavery itself was abolished. The same applies for the verses of the old testament. As time passed and as Jesus came, the laws were replaced. Take note to the new testement, the gospel of Jesus and the morals which he has set from God, because as of its replacement, the old testament is merely a historic reference of old world Christianity, ie jewdism.
As for your questions, I choose to answer number 2. God never created a forced law, that is a simple and common misconception. God gave man free will, ie the reason Adam and eve were succomed to sin without intervention from God. You must view this in two ways. First in this analogy. God is like a father. Your father could tell you what to do 24\7 to the point that you were enslaved to him. Essentially, you wouldn't have freedom and you yourself would be a slave. You wouldn't love him, but rather despise him. God wants your love, and your love on your own accord. Also, verses that depict slavery are not that of Gods law, but rather the interpretations of priests and prophets. The ten commandments are the moral standards and laws in which were set by himself. Any other laws found in the old testament are Jewish law, such as the non eating of pork and slavery.
I find your question of did God create evil to be the most interesting yet. It is apparent that you have very well researched this subject, and you do make notable points. However, the creation of evil is different from what you describe. You once again utilize only verses of slavery. It is true that slavery is an evil thing, but God did not create slavery, man did. Man is evil, born into the world with the inherent plague of sin. Everyone is a sinner and inside we are all evil. It is in my belief that evil is the work of Satan, who is among the fallen angels. He was cast away because he thought himself to be better than God. Why did Satan turn on God, why would God not prevent this? Because God gave the gift of free will, and that is a two way street.
If you truly believe there is no religion, what does that make you? One can certainly never answer this. There are several reasons why, the largest being there is no answer. An atheist is someone who claims to have no nor believe in a religion. However, the definition of religion is A collective of world views and beliefs. If it is your belief that there is no God or religion, does that then not mean you are contradicting yourself, as that is a belief and there for a religion.
I strongly encourage not only you but the viewers of this debate to search and watch this video: God exists atheists!!! I'll prove it scientifically. Though an unprofessional sounding name, it goes in to detail scientific evidence that I could not even begin to comprehend. It is only 1:50 and it is worth the watch.
I only have two questions to ask.
1) if you have no religion what does that make you?
2) can you show any evidence that God is non existent? If so, please state it.
AndyHood

Con

So much to say; oh dear, where to start?

"those specific verses come distinctly from the old testment, which in accordance with christian faith, became invalid, along with its laws upon the coming of Christ Jesus"

Um; no. You have absolutely no biblical justification for this commonly (but certainly not universally) held idea that the New Testament somehow invalidates the Old; indeed, I can show you biblical evidence that stands to the contrary:

Matthew 5:17 [1]
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

There is little disagreement that the "law" described here is Mosaic Law - those laws attributed to the writings of Moses, i.e. the first five books of the bible, including my two earlier quotes. Jesus plainly says that he hasn't come to replace the old law. You may find some interest in the following Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org...;[1]

Anyhow, even if the NT replaces the OT, are you saying that God has some pretty filthy rules in the OT but changed his mind by the time of the NT?

It matters not... if you are only prepared to accept the New Testament, I'll use that instead:

1 Peter 2:18-20 [2]
Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.

And I repeat my question; please answer it:
Why did God (or Jesus, or Saint Peter) not ever say "owning people is wicked"?

As a side-note, I do hope that you never cite the Old Testament to justify the twisted notion that a gay couple expressing their love for each other is a sin. To do so, in the light of your belief about the OT being outdated would be somewhat disingenuous, to the point of hypocrisy.

Indeed, I accuse you of getting dangerously close to hypocrisy when you make a special case for the ten commandments. Why should we accept one part of the Old Testament and not another? You really have got to make a better case for these contradictory positions that you have about the OT.

Moving on, you say:
"Many feel that through science, there is substantial evidence to prove there is no God."

No, that is simply not the case. Most atheists do not claim to be able to prove that "there are no gods", they simply say that they haven't been persuaded by any evidence or argument that any gods do exist.

Listen, this is something that is so simple to understand when we remove your bias and talk about some other belief... Do you believe in fairies, orcs, the Loch Ness Monster, the Yeti, Santa Claus, Thor or Zeus? If not, is your lack of belief a belief system of its own? Is your lack of belief justified by solid scientific proof? I might point out that science has not proved (nor could it ever prove) the non-existence of fairies.

You claimed earlier that I cannot prove the theory of gravity... really? Would you care to let me take you to the top of the Empire State Building and give you a visceral demonstration? "Visceral", teehee, I amuse myself sometimes!

You also said:
"What many fail to realize on the theory of evolution is that there are two different types of evolution. Macro evolution is the scale of evolution which can take a monkey and make it a human. Micro evolution is the scale that can take a bird with a short beak, and give it a long beak to better gather food."

Oh, my long days! First up: nobody said that "evolution took a monkey and made it a man". It's "apes" that you probably mean, not "monkeys"... and no, we did not evolve from an ape... the correct interpretation of the unquestionably true theory of evolution is that man and the great apes share a common ancestor.

I did some research and found the video that you spoke about and have watched it [3]. There are no new ideas here... the two arguments that we are asked to accept are the Cosmological Argument and the Argument from Design. I've seen these two flimsy "proofs of God" thrown about so much that I am frankly sick of them. I will marshall my thoughts and give you a reply:

Even if you think that the Cosmological Argument is a convincing demonstration of the supernatural (which I do not), I cannot see how you can get it to demonstrate Theism as opposed to Deism; indeed, why would we not first think that something very simple in the supernatural realm was responsible? Simple explanations are preferable... if you are about to wedge "God did it" into a conversation, understand two things: You'll have to prove that nothing else could have done it (not even random fluctuations in a supernatural realm) and you aren't "explaining" much... since you now have to explain from whence this god arose. If you find a smooth pebble on a beach, do you immediately wonder whether some ancient human had invented sandpaper?

Notice, also, that "God did it" has similar properties to "it's magic". Both serve as logically consistent explanations that have infinite explanatory power about literally any question, but make no testable or demonstrable predictions. I wouldn't ever go to the "it's magic" explanation of anything myself but, hypothetically, imagine that I did... how is "God did it" superior to "it's magic" as an explanation?

The Argument From Design really is quite dull and obviously wrong. First of all, we have a simple and verifiable reason that life is so complex here on Earth: evolution. No more is required. Secondly, what kind of a wasteful act of creation makes a universe in which 99.9999999999999% of all of the known universe is hostile to life? One flimsy film on the surface of a not particularly large rock orbitting an ordinary star is the only place we know that supports life in a universe populated by literally billions of galaxies!

I'm sorry to say so, but when I read you say "Everyone is a sinner and inside we are all evil" I really do feel sorry for you. I pity you! How sad that somebody would hold such a burdensome belief!

Now, you had two questions for me. Unlike you so far, I'm going to honour any direct questions with an answer.

1) if you have no religion what does that make you?
2) can you show any evidence that God is non existent? If so, please state it.

I have no religion. What does that make me? I'm sorry, I don't understand the question... I'll try to give you an answer to what I think you mean but you may need to refine your question. I am a human being; human beings are intelligent, self-aware animals. I am an intelligent, self-aware animal. I am capable of independent, rational thought. I am capable of love and compassion. I am capable of striving to be as good as I can possibly be. I can choose my own purpose and this is the best way I can put my own self-assigned purpose: I want to leave this World better than I found it. Removing religion from this benighted planet would certainly be one way to achieve that! Religion does plenty of harm and virtually no good. Can you tell me what good religion does?

I think that I've already answered your second question, and I will continue to do so. Explicitly, though, for the record:

I have no proof that God is non-existent, just like you have no proof that faeries are non-existent. So what? It's not rational to accept existence claims without evidence... and, when you cling on to your unsubstantiated belief whilst hiding behind "I'm going to believe this until you prove me wrong" then what you are doing is called Shifting the Burden of Proof [4] by means of an Argument from Ignorance [5].

I offer up one of my questions that Pro has answered and ask you to judge the sanity of the answers:
Why does God give some people hard evidence?
"Because we are all sinners and God is perfect, we are unworthy of his presence, and will be so shamed amongst his physical presence, we will be killed."
"...most [people] would use said evidence [of God] to further themselves."

I note with a degree of disappointment that Pro has not given satisfactory answers to some of my direct questions; I'm going to repeat them this and every other round until they are answered. I am still hoping to show that Pro is forced into a place very similar to that of Bob in my imaginary conversation about Alien Abductions. I won't be able to clearly demonstrate that if Pro won't answer questions.

Why do we have no hard evidence for God?
(discussions about whether we do or not are not answers)

Why did God not give Mother Teresa any evidence?
("God works in mysterious ways" is not an answer, nor is "God had other plans")

If God chose to unambiguously reveal Himself to everybody, he could. Why does He not?

(I'm slightly altering this next question, to be fair)

Why does God continue to allow evil to exist?

Why did God not declare that slavery was wrong?
(Factually incorrect arguments about the NT invalidating the OT are not an answer)

Please pick {1}, {2}, {3} or {4} from my Round 2 list or state why you don't think that any have to be true.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://www.biblegateway.com...
[3] https://www.youtube.com...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
FollowJesus

Pro

It is essential for me to point out several falicies amongst cons argument. Though my answers are based loosely on faith, and may be for seen as an indirect answer, I feel your answers have been particarly the same way. One such example is your comment that you have no evidence to disprove God. however, my question (as well as your position) is if you can prove God is non existant. If you cant, then your arguements are invalid. Honestly, you have yet to demonstrate any evidence to prove me wrong, but rather yu have attempted to unravel my arguements. As well, your comment that the old testement is not a reference and expunged by the new is only partially true. Allowme to elaborate. You are correct in your stance that Jesus did not come to remove the law. However, the law is not witheld in strength as it is in other religions. Once again, i strongly reccommend you watch the video I listed in the prior arguement to further elabarate my stance in the arguement.
You questions have already been answered, its whether or not you except them as substantial. However, with that being said, lets disuss some other item. Perhaps bigfoot woud be more to your suiting.
Bigfoot is an iconic charector that, although has no evidence to existance, does have one element. There is nothing that can disprove bigfoot. In the end, I cant prove the existance of God anymore than you can disprove his existance. The pointis, I strongly believe in the existance of God. God's proof is based soley in the element of faith. As for your comments on the steriotypical answer, I find it to be very unsportsman like in general amongst a debate to defimate the arguement of the opponent.
Your arguement is based on nothing more than opinions and misconceptions that are only there to manipulate the viewers. Your questions were formably answered, it is once again up to you to accept them as substantial. Your sources are either atheist based or flimsey (IE wikipedia). Your research proves nothing mre than you started with. Your entire arguement is not based on showing the tears in my arguement, were as you have yet to display any sort of point to show there is no God.
So I leave you with one last question. If there is no God and if when you die, you simply vanish, then what is the point of life in itself?
AndyHood

Con

First of all I must apologise for pointing it out, but you are making an awful lot of spelling mistakes.

falacies (fallacies)
cons (Con's)
yu (you)
arguements x7 (arguments)
allowme (allow me)
i (I)
charector (character)
cant (can't)
steriotypical (stereotypical)
defimate ("decimate" with a lisp? Seriously, what is this word? - defame?)
flimsey (flimsy)
mre (more)
were as (whereas)

I feel compelled to point out that there are no fallacies amongst my arguments or, if there are, Pro has not named them, merely asserted their existence... a little bit like Pro has not demonstrated that there is a God, merely asserted His existence. Furthermore, Pro has singularly ignored my questions whilst I have answered his (but I will leave that to the voters to decide - I consider that somewhat foul play but some voters may feel differently).

I beseech people not to pass the resolution with no evidence or credible argument. I cannot prove that no gods exist, but that doesn't destroy my case. One cannot prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist, as Pro so reasonably concedes. Existence claims bear an inalienable burden of proof; any attempt to shift that burden to somebody having to disprove an idea to justify removing faith is, plain and simple, breaking the rules of common sense. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In the case of a personal god, I find the evidence wanting and, I hope, so should the gentle voter.

Pro, have you ever considered Russell's Teapot[1] or the Dragon in Carl Sagan's garage[2]?

I shall present for you here the relevant part of the wikipedia page on his marvellous book "The Demon-Haunted World".

As an example of skeptical thinking, Sagan offers a story concerning a fire-breathing dragon that lives in his garage. When he persuades a rational, open-minded visitor to meet the dragon, the visitor remarks that they are unable to see the creature. Sagan replies that he "neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon". The visitor suggests spreading flour on the floor so that the creature's footprints might be seen, which Sagan says is a good idea "but this dragon floats in the air". When the visitor considers using an infra-red camera to view the creature's invisible fire, Sagan explains that the fire is heatless. He continues to counter every proposed physical test with a reason why the test will not work.

Sagan concludes by asking "Now what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true."

Pro, you challenged me to say what proofs would convince me that the basic Theistic claim was true and I answered (a measurable power of prayer was one such possibility). I challenge you to say what disproofs of the basic Theistic claim would you accept! Essentially, if you understand Carl Sagan's point, you can't be allowed to get away with an idea which has no way that it could, even in theory, be disproved... to allow such theories is to potentially allow nonsense into your head. If an idea is going to be at all usefull, it must make predictions... it's truth of falsity must have a bearing on the real world situation. If it does not make any testable predictions, then it properly resides in a category of valueless ideas that we would do well to reject. One could make such an argument, quite reasonably, about the idea that there are no gods... it's hard to see how one would prove that, but it's equally hard to see how one would disprove it...

If you are so hooked on the idea of being able to accept ideas with no meaningful evidence then can you not see that it's at least equally reasonable to take the position that we'll assume that there are no gods until that idea is definitively proven false? Indeed, one might be so bold as to suggest that it's more reasonable, in the light of no evidence... and you haven't answered that, the very first of my direct questions, in any meaningful way.

Why do we have no hard evidence for God?

In the slightly updated way, to avoid your get-out-of-answering techniques, it's now this:

If God chose to unambiguously reveal Himself to everybody, he could. Why does He not?

As promised, other partially or completely unanswered questions include:
Why did God not give Mother Teresa any evidence?
Why does God continue to allow evil to exist?
Please pick one of {1}-{4} from round 2, or say that you pick none.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
FollowJesus

Pro

Were does one begin when examining con's argument. Why don't we start with the hypocritical statements he makes in attempts to decimate my argument. For example, Con claims that I do not directly answer his questions. However, he appears to completely ignore mine ( I believe because he has no credible answer to them) So before I answer every question that Con has asked in this debate (and I do plan on doing so), I challenge him to once again answer the two in which remain unanswered.
1) An Atheist is someone who practices atheism ( the disbelief of Gods and Religion). Religion is an organized collection of beliefs and cultural values. Atheism, therefore, is a collection of ideas surrounding the non existence of God/s or Religion. If these are all true of Atheism, then that there for makes Atheism in itself a religion. Is Atheism therefore hypocritical?
2) If there is no God to serve and no afterlife to achieve, then what is the point of life itself? What is the point of keeping Morality in the world?
I Challenge Con to answer these two questions, and to answer them in the direct manner that he wishes to get from my answers.

Now on to the answers to the questions in which con asks of me.
1) Why do we have no hard evidence of God? The truth is, there is no hard evidence to support God's existence. However, there is hard evidence to prove the validity of the Bible. Such examples include a centuries old Ark, fossilized into the side of a mountain that measures to exact length of the Ark described in the Bible ( this being in cubits). Under further testing, it was found that the fossilized Ark was indeed made up of ancient wood. Other evidence includes the shrine of Abraham, who was the first leader of Gods people, and the ruins of the city of Saddam, the city of sin that God destroyed. In the same respect that I have no hard evidence of God, Con has no hard evidence to disprove the existence of God. I therefore find this question to be futile (although others may disagree).
2) Why does God reveal himself to some people, but not to all people? First, I would like to point out that the hole in Jesus' hand was indeed NOT a sign from God. It was rather, proof that the man who had risen was indeed Jesus Christ. The hole in the hand was not even made by Jesus, nor God, but rather by the nails in which were driven through his hands and ankles by the Romans in order to hang him upon the cross. The burning bush was shown to Moses before God revealed himself to Moses (this on the days that Moses received the ten commandments or Mosaic Law). Moses was a pure follower of God and (though a sinner) was chosen by God. Moses says himself in the Bible he was ashamed in the face of the lord, this being the man that God chose to represent him. We can not view the lord because he is sinless and can not stand to be around sin. That is why sacrifice was in order up until the coming of Jesus (who was the ultimate sacrifice). When a regular human is put to the face of God, he is killed, because of the sinful nature of ourselves. Though we do not see God face to face, we do see his works which provide substantial evidence of his existence (at least in my opinion). His works can be miracle, such as Jesus healing a crippled man, or minuscule such as the oxygen which take for granted every second of life.
3) Why did God not give Mother Teresa any evidence? First, who's to say he didn't? Secondly, as I said above, God gave substantial evidence of his existence through his works. Apparently, this suited Mother Teresa just fine, because she remained a devout and loyal Christian throughout her life.
4) Did God create evil? God did not create evil. God created the angel Lucifer (who we may know as the serpent or the devil). As God intended, every angel (as well as person) was given free will upon creation. Lucifer chose knowingly to attack God because he felt he was better than God. God inevitably struck him down and condemned Lucifer to hell. Lucifer plagues the earth with sin. Sin is the wrong doings which we take part in on a daily basis (IE lying and cheating). To say this is evil is a two way street. Can it be considered evil yes, but truly what is Evil? What do we have to base evil on?
5) Why did God never command thou shall not own people? It does seem wrong for a person to own another person. However, look at it from this angle. God's chosen people (the Jews of the time) were enslaved themselves by pagans of Egypt. How is it a slave can go about owning another slave? I understand that there are verses in the bible which juristic the beating of slaves near to death. However, it never does say that one can own a slave. This may strike you as odd. How can you have permission to beat a slave, but not to own one. Think of it this way. Your parents may tell you that you can hit someone, but they don't tell you to get in a fight. Once again, it all comes down to how you interpret the verses of the old testament.
6) Why should someone not except the four positions con listed? Well, that is a very good question. Perhaps the correct answer is that due to people such as con, the word of God has been manipulated. Simply put, if you read the verses in which are in the Bible, they do not speak of the lack or moral attributions. God teaches love to one another. Prophets and Pharisees however, teach what will give them personal gain. That is were the bible is manipulated. To better answer the question, they are wrong interpretations of the bible that are manipulated to sway people away from God and Jesus.
7) Why was it never said that owning people is wicked? I have no answer for this. Perhaps it was the personal opinion of some that caused this never to be spoken. In all honesty, I simply can not answer this question.
8) What does Good religion do? Good religion teaches love. Good religion teaches faith. Good religion teaches that there is a God who loves us, but is under constant attack by skeptics such as con. That is what good religion does.
9) Why does God allow evil to exist? Once again, a hard question to answer without a true definition of evil. By evil, I presume con means sin. God allows sin to exist only because of free will. This is the same reason your parents allow you to make mistakes when you are an adult. You are faced with two choices, good or bad. Free will is the ability to choose. If God forced you too choose what he wanted, you would not love him. All God wants is for us to love him on our own accord, not though his force.

Now that cons answers have all been answered (from start to finish), allow me to provide a biblical verse that shows the true intent of con.
"Do not be deceived: "Bad company ruins good morals."- 1 Corinthians 15:33
Non believers try to deceive believers and those who are still undecided. They try to sway people away from the truth, making them bad company. This bad company inevitably makes for the ruin of ones good morals. This is strongly represented by the saying, don't hang around the wrong crowd.

So, in the true spirit of debate (and as well to validate his statements) I ask con to answer my remaining two questions, which I will repast at the end. I also request that he answer them directly and clearly, without the use of verses from the bible in which he can manipulate. I also encourage any viewers/voters/commentaries to remove any bias and do a tad bit of research on the topics in which con discusses. What you will find is that they do not support the non existence of a God, but rather are merely their to try to diminish my claims. Once again, here are the remaining to questions for con.

1) An Atheist is someone who practices atheism ( the disbelief of Gods and Religion). Religion is an organized collection of beliefs and cultural values. Atheism, therefore, is a collection of ideas surrounding the non existence of God/s or Religion. If these are all true of Atheism, then that there for makes Atheism in itself a religion. Is Atheism therefore hypocritical?
2) If there is no God to serve and no afterlife to achieve, then what is the point of life itself? What is the point of keeping Morality in the world?
AndyHood

Con

I cannot prove that there are no gods; so what? An argument that goes of the form "I'm going to believe this until you prove it false" is a shifting of the burden of proof. Do you understand Carl Sagan's beautiful Dragon argument?

Q: Why do we have no hard evidence of God?

Pro says:
1. there is no hard evidence to support God's existence.
2. there is hard evidence to prove the validity of the Bible. (I will debunk this later)
3. Con has no hard evidence to disprove the existence of God.

Bonus: I therefore find this question to be futile (although others may disagree).

Imagine this conversation between a bank and their customer:
Bank to Customer: You need to repay your loan.
Customer to Bank: WHAT loan? Have you evidence of a loan?
Bank to Customer: No, we have no evidence of the loan, but you've got to pay it back.
Customer to Bank: Why do you have no evidence of this loan?
Bank to Customer: three points:
1. We don't have evidence of that loan.
2. We have evidence of loans in the past.
3. You can't prove that there wasn't a loan.

I imagine that you might find the nearest gun and declare it open day for the Bank Manager Hunting Season. You would still want to know WHY the bank had no evidence of the loan but still felt that you had to pay!

And yet, like the bank demanding the repayment of a phantom loan, Con still demands of the gentle reader belief in God. You haven't shown any evidence of the loan that needs paying, or of the God that needs belief paid to him like a debt of Faith.

I wanted an answer, such as "because God doesn't want to reveal Himself to us" so that I could ask "why not?" and so on and so forth. We got an answer, to a degree, in answering another question (check back and see the context):

Q. Why does God give certain people hard evidence?
Because we are all sinners and God is perfect, we are unworthy of his presence, and will be so shamed amongst his physical presence, we will be killed. A more practical answer for the realist is that God reveals himself to those whom he knows can not only handle the truth, but spread it to others as well. This is why the majority of the time, you will notice those such as moses and isaih,who are prophets, will be given the evidence of God, as they are prophets and religious leaders who will spread the truth to further the name of God, were as most would use said evidence to further themselves.

I will leave it up to the gentle reader to decide whether Pro has yet answered this question in a plausible way. I suggest that they have not. Pro gives a lot of pseudo-evidence (which I will debunk), whilst admitting that we don't have hard evidence and protesting that I have no hard evidence the other way. This is not answering a question, it is question-evasion!

I do not wish to be accused of question-evasion, so to Pro's direct questions:

1) An Atheist is someone who practices atheism ( the disbelief of Gods and Religion). Religion is an organized collection of beliefs and cultural values. Atheism, therefore, is a collection of ideas surrounding the non existence of God/s or Religion. If these are all true of Atheism, then that there for makes Atheism in itself a religion. Is Atheism therefore hypocritical?

That is lunacy. One does not "practice a non-belief". Do you believe in the Loch Ness Monster? Are you a Nessyist or an aNessyist?

Oh, you're an aNessyist, are you? So, now see how it feels when some slavering question such as this is directed at you:

An aNessyist is someone who practices aNessyism (the disbelief of the Loch Ness Monster). Nessyism is an organised, tribal group; therefore, aNessyism is a collection of ideas surrounding the non existence of the Loch Ness Monster. If these are all true of aNessyism, aNessyism is a form of Nessyism. Is aNessyism not therefore hypocritical?

So much wrong I haven't time to expose all of the stupidity... but here we go:

One does not "practice atheism",
like one does not "practice aNessyism".

Atheism is not a collection of ideas, it's one idea: rejection of the claims of theism.
aNessyism is not a collection of ideas, it's one idea: rejection of the claims of Nessyism.

Atheism cannot be religion (in the sense that you mean)... it is DEFINED as the rejection of Theism.
aNessyism cannot be Nessyism... it is DEFINED as the rejection of Nessyism.

If ALL of these are true of aTheism? No, NONE are true!

Is Atheism hypocritical? What slavering drivel! No more hypocritial than is aNessyism. How could a belief system (especially one that is merely the rejection of a fantastical claim) be inherently hypocritical? Do you know what hypocritical means? Hypocritical is pretending to have beliefs that you do not, in fact, possess. If a belief system could be such that believing in it logically entailed pretending to believe something that you don't believe, you're a Theist!

So to Pro's second direct question:
2) If there is no God to serve and no afterlife to achieve, then what is the point of life itself? What is the point of keeping Morality in the world?

Um. What's the point to life itself? Seriously? The point of this life is to leave the World a better place than when you found it, to try to be the best person that you can be, to live, to love and to make the most of this wonderful one-shot life. To waste any of it wrestling with Bronze Age philosophy seems a little sad.

What is the point of keeping Morality in the World? What a silly question! WHAT a silly question! Nobody is proposing to remove morality from the World... and if some evil megalomaniac were to attempt such a thing, I'd probably not be scared because I don't see how that could feasibly be done. I think that Pro has a very funny idea of what "morality" is. The point of behaving morally, though, I suppose is what Pro's about... I'd ask a different question: WHY do we behave morally? And the answer is not because of religion... religion does not act as some sort of antidote to murder, rape, theft and so on and so forth... rates of these events in religious communities are the same... The reason that we act morally is because of evolution by selection of the fittest group. Consider how there could be any evolutionary pressure for us to evolve language, if it wasn't for the better of the group... it would not be a random mutation that would benefit one individual (in fact, it costs resources, so this would be a disadvantage). Likewise empathy, sympathy, love, tribalism, language, etc.

"Good religion teaches that there is a God who loves us, but is under constant attack by skeptics such as con"

I feel it's the other way round: humans are attacked by religion. Its poison is everywhere. Small children (some who are dear to me) getting indoctrinated by being shown videos of recreations of Christ's Execution at very early ages (such as 4!!!). Religions are responsible for sending hunters out to prey on the weak (in hospitals, outside abortion clinics, on my own grandparent's door)... yeah, the old "catch an old lonely person, get them to join the church and leave their money to the church" trick. Maybe not your religion, but religion is responsible. Who is attacking whom? I contend that Religion is bombarding the World with the constant thrust of its greedy clutches. How do you feel about religions that are not your religion being furthered by indoctrinating kids, spreading by violence, by fair means or foul? Atheism is nothing like this. Outspoken atheists like myself attack ideas which we think are wrong and dangerous. That is not the same as the organised campaign that Religion has been waging on mankind since its inception! Free your mind, take the training wheels off!

What was this next bit!?

Now that cons answers have all been answered (from start to finish), allow me to provide a biblical verse that shows the true intent of con.
"Do not be deceived: "Bad company ruins good morals."- 1 Corinthians 15:33

You seriously think that you can enlighten me about my true intent by resorting to an Iron Age text? At least you didn't use the Bronze Age Old Testament. And you want to insult me and tell me that I don't have good morals? How Ad Hominem do you want to get? I might get close to the mark with insulting your specious arguments, but I tackle your ideas. If anybody is keen on research, try to find out how much religiosity (even in your favoured flavour of religion) reduces murder or rape or theft. Then come back with your holier-than-thou moral argument.

a centuries old Ark, fossilized into the side of a mountain that measures to exact length of the Ark described in the Bible ( this being in cubits)

I'm guessing that there aren't even many Jews, Christians or Muslims out there who belief this nonsense (although many believe the story of Abraham), but let's go...

I'll let Ken Ham and Tim Lovett (both believe adamantly in the story of the Ark) do the talking for me:
Look at the "Where Is Noah’s Ark Today?" section of this: https://answersingenesis.org...;

I had to search for a little before I found this priceless gem:
http://www.arkdiscovery.com...
Again, I was doubled up with laughter, but this time I had tears rolling down my face; I could hardly breathe.

Wiki says:
Searches for Noah's Ark have been made from at least the time of Eusebius (c.275–339 AD) to the present day. Various locations for the ark have been suggested but have never been confirmed.[4][5] The practice is widely regarded as pseudoarchaeology.[6][7][8]

We wouldn't be complete without this:
However, it never does say that one can own a slave. This may strike you as odd. How can you have permission to beat a slave, but not to own one.

"Never does say that one can own a slave"? Have you not read the book you think is the Word of your Lord? How hypocritical!

I even gave you a hint where to look (did you pay that little attention to me?):

Leviticus 25:44-46
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.

Even if you believe in God, surely Pro has lost this debate?
Debate Round No. 5
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
And 1 other thing..... can you see by your example....your choice is inevitible. :-)
Posted by a_janis1 1 year ago
a_janis1
*Inculcated a fear of going to jail
Posted by a_janis1 1 year ago
a_janis1
Should the mere fear of reality have such an control on my life that I cant function in society? My parents and government have inoculated a fear of going to jail into me, but is that illegal or wrong? Of course not! So neither is teaching a kid about the reality of hell.

Furthermore, if teaching kids about hell has such a profound affect on children, then go to a Catholic grade school and show me statistics of all the kids who show signs of paranoia stemming from fears of Hell. Would you be able to do that? No, because that doesn't cause paranoia within children. One more reason why it doesn't make any sense to make teaching about Hell illegal.
Posted by a_janis1 1 year ago
a_janis1
Once again why focus so much on Hell? We shouldn't put so much into the negative when the positive so vastly outweighs it. The Catholic Church is a place for sinners. We are fallen and through the Church, we are picked up.

Why constantly talk about the fear of Hell (which we choose for ourselves) and totally ignore Heaven? What about teaching a child to choose the right path which leads to ultimate salvation, perfect joy and happiness, and eternal love? Certainly that would be worth mentioning too. The Catholic Church has never been a place of condemnation. We condemn our own souls by the actions we freely make. The Catholic Church has been a place that offers total hope and salvation when we meet our biological end. Jesus was tortured and crucified for our salvation, what is so fear inducing about a hero?

And also, there are huge misconceptions about Hell. You really have to want to go to Hell to get in. First of all, there are two ways to be saved:
The first is through honest repentance where you are truly sorry for your sins.
The other is through repentance through fear where you are sorry merely for the fact that you fear Hell.

We are presented with this choice when we die. So its hard to choose not to repent when you're directly faced with Hell, although, it is possible. God wants us in Heaven.

Also, Purgatory is part of heaven. Purgatory is basically the washing machine of Heaven where souls are finally forgiven and cleansed anew. That means sinners go to Heaven! Thats the whole point of Purgatory.

And if its so bad still to warn kids about Hell but also to teach kids about the salvation of heaven, then let me ask you this:

I just turned 18 this year. That means I can be arrested and prosecuted as an adult. I can be given a death penalty now. I remember one of the first things I thought was "Holy hell, I can go to a real man's jail if I mess up." But should I just be ignorant of this possibility for my whole life? Should the fear of
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
Sorry.... lets call good downstream. Not evil downstream.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
This whole debate is pointless as it relies on us having free will.
@Andy.. two vectors, 4 vectors, 6 vectors or a hundred is irrelevant. At any one point you can't be swimming upstream and downstream. You have the options of good or evil. Lets call evil downstream as its in our nature to be good. We would only swim upstream if the like and benefit factors outwieghed the evil. Without benefit or preferance we would always swim downstream. Think of time as the water flowing. You can never swim faster than the current so swimmimg upstream or downstream won't allow you to travel back in time. Although its interesting to note that time would seem to pass slower the faster you swim downstream. Totally irrelevant. Now any decision is based on these 3 vectors. Good, like or beneficial. These are all predetermined at any given moment. You cant like and dislike something at the same time. Nothing can be beneficial and detrimental at the same time. And nothing is good and evil at the same time.

If I give you 2 options.... niether gooder, liker or more beneficial than the other...(I know gooder and liker are not real words but you get the point) your brain would struggle to pick one. It would either ascribe more meaning to one or just guess.

Eg: smell or black hole?
Posted by AndyHood 1 year ago
AndyHood
"And there are people who truly believe it is unfair that they were put into this game. That often results in, not shockingly, suicide."

Couldn't agree more... I know CHILDREN who live in worse-than-mortal fear. I consider this child abuse.

An adult with a child will seek to teach their child important things, such as "be careful of roads". These are things that we have not evolved to know how to handle... cars move faster than anything we have evolved to cope with and we don't judge speeds and distances very well... the child NEEDS to be taught to fear roads, for their own survival... well, at least, to treat roads with respect.

Now, if a parent believes literally in a Hell, it follows that they will want to teach their children how to avoid this reality... on the other hand, I consider it child abuse to inculcate a child with fear of hell... what to do? Try to show to adults that belief in hell is silly; and make explicit laws that make the teaching of hell to children illegal. That's my recipe.
Posted by a_janis1 1 year ago
a_janis1
His plan did include that we would be tempted and as any responsible person should be able to do, we avoid that immoral temptation. Remember, even Jesus Himself was tempted in the desert. That is human nature. Lucifer does not win us over, we give ourselves to him. We fall. We freely choose Lucifer if we choose evil. All he does is wait like a predator. And no, he does not send us to hell. We choose hell for ourselves based on how we live our lives. Lucifer doesn't condemn our souls, we submit our souls to him. Our actions meet due punishment in the end in the same way a just legal system would work.

But why focus so much on hell, the negative. We can also choose Heaven. We can choose perfect joy and happiness in eternal life and have that for ourselves. And if life is a game, wouldn't you want to participate when you believe you can choose for yourself your fate? A game would have a random ending like an upset in a sporting event where the underdog takes home the title. Life isn't like that. Everything about your fate is completely in your hands unlike a game. You pick the ending. You follow path A, the good path, and you end up in Heaven. You follow B, the bad path and you end up in Hell because thats how you chose to live your life. It isn't a game. Its a free choice to make.

And there are people who truly believe it is unfair that they were put into this game. That often results in, not shockingly, suicide.
Posted by AndyHood 1 year ago
AndyHood
Was His plan that Lucifer would constantly tempt us, sometimes winning over us, corrupting us and sending us to Hell? Do you consider it ungrateful, were that the case (fortunately I don't believe it) if I were to say "I didn't ask to be born into this; please take me out of this sick game"?
Posted by a_janis1 1 year ago
a_janis1
Lucifer was created by God. They are not the same. Lucifer is not God. Lucifer is choosing evil by corrupting our minds. And God did not mandate that Lucifer poison us. God gave Lucifer the same choice we all get, to choose evil or to choose good. Gods plan was for us to choose evil or good. His plan was never for us to be mandated to choose evil, rather, allow for us to choose evil because we have free will. Ultimately it is our responsibility to act how we want to act despite all that God has given us in terms of aid.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Acedia 1 year ago
Acedia
FollowJesusAndyHoodTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seems to have stronger arguments but everything is else is pretty much the same.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
FollowJesusAndyHoodTied
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: Since there is no definitive proof available in this argument, it becomes a matter of probability. Many arguments appeared to drift away from the resolution and overall, Con appeared to have the stronger rebuttals and arguments. Sources to Con.