The Instigator
CaesarNathanSkinner
Pro (for)
The Contender
BrettBoelkens
Con (against)

It is more reasonable to not believe in God than to believe in God.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
CaesarNathanSkinner has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/20/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 323 times Debate No: 103262
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

CaesarNathanSkinner

Pro

My argument is that due to the lack of credible evidence for God's existence the most reasonable position is to disbelieve in God. The burden of proof lies on those who believe in God, just as the burden of proof would lie on Bigfoot believers to make their case. Since the burden of proof lies on those who believe in God, then the debate I take it should focus on the Con side of this argument attempting to give credible evidence for God, while I on the Pro side will attempt to argue for the evidence put forward not being credible, unless it is genuinely credible in which case I would concede.
BrettBoelkens

Con

I'm an antitheist, but I also thought it might be a learning experience to try to argue the other side.

What I will not do in this debate is argue for the God of the Bible. Praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster! I will argue that it is irrational to believe that gods do not exist. To not believe in God based on a lack of evidence is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Let's deal with some positive arguments for my position, due to positive claims requiring positive evidence. The Kalam cosmological argument, for example, says that everything that begins to exists has at least one cause, and due to the universe beginning to exist, it too must have at least one cause. The teleological fine tuning argument shows that our existing universe is incredibly improbable, and due to its incredible improbability, there must be some reason for us existing rather than not. Additionally, from the moral argument, there must be an objective source of morality or morality is then made subjective.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by BrettBoelkens 5 months ago
BrettBoelkens
Some jokes I've heard

"God is dead." -Nietzsche
""Nietzsche is dead and I'm still here." "God
""Some are born posthumously." "Nietzsche

Beer is proof of God and how he loves us.

What does a dyslexic agnostic insomniac do? He stays up all night wondering if there is a dog.

God said to John, "Come forth and receive eternal life." But John came fifth and received a toaster.
Posted by dsjpk5 6 months ago
dsjpk5
Same here. You're going to want to edit this before someone accepts it. Define which God you're referring to. If you don't, you'll be defeated easily.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.