Islam is the true religion
Debate Rounds (3)
Howdy Khuza (can I call you Khuza?). I'll accept your debate. I'm not a Christian, or any kind of theist for that matter, but you said this debate was welcome to anyone so here I am.
Since this debate is only three rounds I'd better get down to business right now.
1. Burden of Proof
Given the resolution "Islam is the true religion" I assume that Pro intends to argue both for God's existence and for Islam's validity over all other religions. Why must pro argue for God's existence? Consider that there are non-theistic religions . For Islam to be proven as being more "true" than all other religions, Pro must establish that God exists and then show that the Islamic God is the only possible God. If both these things are not done by the end of round 3, then Pro has not fulfilled his BOP.
2. Rebuttals to Pro's Arguments
- Evidence 1: 360 Joints
Pro has not sourced this claim and so it doesn't technically require debunking, but assuming it is true it is not evidence for anything. Anybody who can count to 360 and has access to a complete skeleton can deduce how many joints the human body has. No divine intervention is needed.
- Evidence 2: Pregnancy Stages
Once again, no source is given, so this claim doesn't mean anything right now. I ask Pro to source his claims in the next round as well as any new claims made in the future. Without a source, it is impossible to verify whether or not the Quran actually does or does not match the modern day medical science understanding of pregnancy and the development stages of the fetus.
- Evidence 3: Never Been Changed
This is a non-sequitur. Even if the existence of God had been established by Pro, the consistency of the Quran isn't actually evidence of anything. Divine intervention is not needed to keep a story straight. Besides, other religions claim to have done this too. For example, Christian's claim that the bible has gone unchanged and some even use the Quran as evidence for this .
- Argument 1: Christian Stuff
I'm not a Christian, so I can't answer these questions nor do they apply to me.
3. My Arguments
- Argument 1: Way of Life for Everyone?
My opponent has claimed the following, "Islam is the one and only true religion and the holy Quran has a complete way of life for EVERYONE." -- This statement is false. Consider the Islamic month of fasting known as 'Ramadan'. During Ramadan, the Muslim cannot eat while the sun is up. He/she can only eat before sunrise and after sunset . This cannot be incorporated in every ones life because it would kill people in Northern Canada, Alaska, Greenland, Norway and Northern Russia as these area's have continual sunlight and darkness for up to three months straight. In the event of continual sunlight, the Muslim will die. In the event of continual night, the whole point of Ramadan is defeated.
Given how short this debate will be I won't add anything else for now.
Pro has yet to argue for God's existence and has yet to provide a real argument for why Islam is more "true" than any other religion. The BOP has not been fulfilled.
1. Rebuttals to Pro's Arguments
- Evidence 1: The Quran
Pro contends that the Quran is evidence for God. He uses the claims in the Quran as proof of the Quran's legitimacy as evidence. This is circular logic. The Quran cannot be said to be evidence for God any more than Harry Potter is evidence of Dumbledore.
- Evidence 2: Muhammad's Illiteracy
Pro contends that the Prophet Muhammad was illiterate and therefore the only possible way for the Quran to have come from him is via divine intervention. This claim of Muhammad's illiteracy must be sourced (by something other than the Quran) first and foremost, but more importantly it is not outside the realm of man's ability to form a collaborative effort to write a book. Muhammad could have sought help in writing the Quran. No divine intervention is needed.
- Argument 1: The Quran's Uniqueness
Pro contends that nothing on Earth is similar to the Quran and therefore all other Holy books fail to meet Allah's challenge to do so. This may or may not be true depending on how "alike" something must be in order to meet this criteria of similarity, but ultimately this is a non-sequitur. The uniqueness of the Quran does not validate the existence of God. Many fiction books are unique in some form or another, but they are still fiction nonetheless.
- Argument 2: iPhone 3G =/= iPhone 5
Pro points out that smashing an iPhone 3G does not cause it to transform into an iPhone 5. Pro contends that this shows the formation of planets due to the big bang is unlikely. This is dangerously close to a straw-man as I have not made the argument for the Big Bang theory in this debate, however since I am a proponent of said theory I will let this slide.
The fact of the matter is, the smashing of an iPhone does not parallel the formation of planets. First off, the Big Bang theory is not a theory of planet formation. "The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that explains the early development of the Universe" . Now, to address the schwerpunkt of Pro's argument here, planet formation is not as complicated or precise as the formation of an iPhone. According to the Nebular hypothesis, the leading theory in planetary development, planets form as the result of gravity around a star. A star's incredible gravity pulls in "giant molecular clouds" (GMC) which in turn pull eachother together to form progressively larger and larger clumps; eventually reaching planetary size . This is a very simplified explanation of this process, but even so it is clear that the formation of planets does not require much precision, at least not nearly as much as it takes to create an iPhone and therefore the natural formation of planets is logical and expected, while the spontaneous formation of an iPhone 5 from the scattered remains of an iPhone 3G is not logical or expected.
My opponent claims that planets are perfectly round. This is matter-of-factly false. Earth is an oblate spheroid. 
- Argument 3: Monkey's Don't Beget Humans
Pro attempts to discredit evolution by pointing out that there is not a single occasion where a monkey has become a human. This argument is also a straw-man to the same extent the last argument was, but once again I will continue anyway.
Evolution does not propose such rapid changes. Evolution describes the progressive changes a particular organism goes through to better suit its environment . A monkey turning into a human is not what an evolutionist would expect. To the contrary, such a phenomenon would be evidence against evolution.
There doesn't seem to be any more coherent arguments laid out by Pro here (even given the standards set by his arguments thus far) So I will move on to the defence of my arguments.
2. Defence of My Arguments
No counter-argument has been made to my argument yet. I extend my argument.
Con did not defend his arguments in round 1 and instead has opted to only make new arguments. This suggests that he has surrendered those point, however he did take the effort to source those arguments (sort of), so perhaps he plans on defending them in the next round. We'll just have to wait and see. I will ask Pro to source his material in such a way that it can be immediately verified if possible and to not use the book he's arguing for as evidence of its own legitimacy. For now, Pro's arguments have been refuted and my argument on the impossibility of near-arctic Ramadan stands undressed.
I look forward to your response.
Khuzaimaamir forfeited this round.
My opponent has forfeited and since this is the last round I won't add any new arguments, I'll just post my conclusion.
My opponent has failed to fulfil his burden of proof in any way as he had abandoned his arguments made in round 1 and has forfeited round three, leaving my rebuttals to his arguments in round 2 uncontested as well. Furthermore, Pro has failed to even acknowledge my argument about Ramadan being a lethal practice in places that get sunlight for months straight.
Conduct- Pro forfeited
Spelling and grammar- Pro's "wall of text" method of presenting his arguments made finding his arguments difficult and many sentences simply made no sense.
More convincing arguments- I'm biased here, but I contend that my arguments were superior.
Most reliable sources- Pro failed to source most of his claims and the ones he did source were not up to DDO standards both in the method of sourcing and in the sources themselves.
I thank my opponent for his time and urge the voters to vote con. =)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for FF.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.