The Instigator
Derrida
Pro (for)
Winning
39 Points
The Contender
impactyourworld89
Con (against)
Losing
27 Points

It is not reasonable 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,590 times Debate No: 2154
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (22)

 

Derrida

Pro

Take 2

My argument is basically this:

1) There is no evidence for the existence of God.
(Assumed premiss to be argued about during the debate)

2) If there is no evidence for the existence of x, then there is no reason to believe in the existence of x.
(I will put an argument forth in the next paragraph)

C) There is no reason to believe in God.
(From 1 and 2)

God is here defined as a personal, supernatural creator of the universe.

When I say that there is no evidence for the existence of God, I mean that there are neither any experiences or logical arguments that make the existence of God likely or probable. Experience is any information from the outside world that comes to us through our senses, and logical argumentation is anything that can be deduced from this experience or tautologies, statements that must be true even if we don't have any experience in relation to them. Thus, experiential evidence is of the kind:
- I am looking at a tree.
And tautologies are of the kind:
- 2+2=4
or
- Something exists or nothing exists.

Since "God exists" isn't a tautology, and assuming God's existence can't be deduced through experiential evidence or other tautological statements, then there is no reason to believe in God, thus entailing weak atheism: the position that belief in God's existence has not yet been shown to be reasonable.

If there is no evidence for the existence of God, then there is no reason to believe in God. This is because, if there is no evidence for a proposition, then there is at least as much evidence for the proposition's negation. So, if there is no evidence for leprechauns, (And don't fool yourself by thinking that no-one's looking: http://www.irelandseye.com...), and someone believes in them nonetheless, then it would be reasonable to ask why they don't disbelieve in leprechauns without evidence. Surely it is more rational to believe only in things that have evidence, in which case we would be able to supply a reason for not believing in the nonexistence of such entities.

Furthermore, surely there are a set of beliefs, all of them without evidence, which are contradictory. For instance, we have no evidence for either the belief that all leprechauns that exist have beards, or the belief that all leprechauns that exist are clean-shaven. Nonetheless, we cannot believe both of these propositions at once.

Thus, given that there is no evidence that God is likely to exist, there is no reason to believe in God.

I'll leave the matter of evidence to the con, allowing them to supply anything they would grant as evidential support.
impactyourworld89

Con

First off, I would like to say this to the voters. Please read the entire argument before voting instead of reading the topic and voting on the concept.
That aside, here we go

You said "God is here defined as a personal, supernatural creator of the universe"

All right, we'll start there, with the creation of the universe.
There are only three ways the universe got here.
1) The universe has always existed
2) The universe created itself
3) The universe was created by someone outside of the universe

Now lets look at these deeper.
1) The universe has always existed
This option has been utterly rejected by the scientific community. The motion of the galaxies, the background radiation echo, and other evidences all overwhelmingly point to the fact that the universe sprang into action at one point in time. The earth has been degenerating and it will have an end, therefore, it must have had a beginning. It is not eternal. Stephen Hawking, the very popular and immensely respected agnostic astronomer from Cambridge University, agrees. He says, "Almost everyone believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning."

That's interesting, that's exactly what the Bible says
Genesis 1:1 In the BEGINNING God created the Heavens and the earth

2) The universe created itself
This is philosophically impossible. Of course, before the universe existed it would not have been around to do the creating. Obviously, a non-existent universe could not have done anything! It did not exist. We all know that nothing can not do anything. Nothing is just that Nothing. It (if we could even call nothing an it) cannot see, smell, act think, or create. The impossibility of something creating itself is in harmony with a basic law of physics called "The Law of Conservation." If you've ever had a physics class you'll recall this. It states: "From nothing, comes nothing." This is a scientific law that has been written in stone. Why? There has never been a single observed instance in which this law has been violated.

Even David Hume (1711 – 1776), one of the most zealous skeptics of Christianity ever, agreed that things don't just pop themselves into existence. In 1754, he wrote, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause ."

So option 1 and option 2 are out, that leaves only one more, someone outside of the universe (i.e. God) created it. Let's imagine I have a painting. Question: When you see a painting, what proof do you need to establish the fact that a painter exists? Nothing besides the painting itself. The painting itself is absolute proof that there was a painter. You do not need to see the painter to believe that he or she exists. The painting is all the evidence you need. The painting would not be there if the painter did not exist; and so it is with the universe. The existence of the universe [a giant painting if you will] itself proves absolutely that there is a creator.

I have more reasons to believe that there is a God, and I will address them in the next round. But I will leave with this. If we knew everything about God, there would be no room for faith. We can't be put on the same level of intelligence as God.
John 20:29 (NLT) "You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who haven't seen me and believe anyway.
Debate Round No. 1
Derrida

Pro

"First off, I would like to say this to the voters. Please read the entire argument before voting instead of reading the topic and voting on the concept. "

I am in full agreement with this statement. For everyone involved to get the most out of this debate, all arguments must be read, before voting for the position you find most supported by the arguments given.

My opponent has provided, as evidence for the likelihood of God's existence, a version of the cosmological argument, that the origin of the universe makes God's existence likely. She also uses a minor form of the teleological argument, which posits an intelligent designer as the cause of the attributes of the universe.

The Cosmological Argument

My opponent begins by alluding to 3 possible origins of the universe:

"1) The universe has always existed
2) The universe created itself
3) The universe was created by someone outside of the universe"

However, I believe this to be a false dichotomy, in that there are two other possible ways to account for the origin of the universe:

4) The universe existed timelessly before the Big Bang.
The Big Bang, an explosion that created all matter and space from a super-dense, lawless singularity, also created time. This means that, before the Big Bang, there was no time. We can conclude from this, then, that the Big Bang singularity timelessly caused the Big Bang to occur, from which time arose.
Indeed, this must be a possibility, as God is said to have created the universe timelessly, otherwise He would need to have a beginning or be eternal. This means that the universe didn't so much begin to exist, as this would mean that there was time before the universe's existence, but that there simply was no time before the universe, and so didn't need to be created at all.

5) The universe is finite, but didn't have a beginning.
The fact of the Big Bang Singularity has been called into question, because scientists have observed that the laws of physics break down near singularities, for instance near Black Holes, and because the Big Bang singularity is inferred by the tracing of world-lines backwards through time, something we can only do by inferring the uniformity of physical laws. This leaves open another possibility: that the universe shrinks the further we go backwards in time, but that the Big Bang singularity is never reached. In this case, the shrinking of the universe is without end, but nonetheless finite. Hence, the universe is like a cake being cut in half an infinite number of times; there will always be a remaining piece of the cake even though it constantly shrinks in size: first half a cake, then a quarter, then an eighth, and so on. If this is so, then the origin of the universe doesn't need an explanation, as every instant is accounted for by a past instant.

Also, I don't see why (2) should be held to be impossible. For such a claim to be true, we don't need to posit the universe in its entirety. We need only, in fact, hold that two or more things can simultaneously cause each other, which might then give rise to the universe as a whole. Such simultaneous causation is observed in the universe; for instance, the gravitational attraction of one object can cause another object to move towards it, whilst the second object causes the first to move to it in a similar manner, like two meteors being thrown off of orbit by each other's gravitational force. Thus, such a beginning seems to be at least a logically possible state of affairs. The law of conservation doesn't seem to apply to the subatomic level, as there have been observed occurrences of "virtual particles" arising from spatial vacuums with any ultimate cause.

"That's interesting, that's exactly what the Bible says
Genesis 1:1 In the BEGINNING God created the Heavens and the earth"

It doesn't seem very interesting, as many other religions profess the same thing, such as Judaism and Islam, whilst many more religions profess that the universe has always existed, such as the ancient Mayans.

The Teleological Argument

"Let's imagine I have a painting. Question: When you see a painting, what proof do you need to establish the fact that a painter exists? Nothing besides the painting itself. The painting itself is absolute proof that there was a painter. You do not need to see the painter to believe that he or she exists. The painting is all the evidence you need. The painting would not be there if the painter did not exist; and so it is with the universe. The existence of the universe [a giant painting if you will] itself proves absolutely that there is a creator."

This seems an ambiguous claim. In what way is the universe like a painting? If it is like a painting because it is beautiful, then surely this beauty is subjective; someone may walk into any modern art gallery today and find a painting or sculpture which could have been produced by a giant explosion of pain or clay. A lot of things in the universe seem very ugly and not very artistic at all, so is this evidence against a creator?

If the universe is like a painting because it exhibits patterns and order, then this can be accounted for by the laws of nature, which are the result of the proportions of matter and energy acting within space-time. For instance, the law of gravity can be explained by alluding to the curvature of space-time when it comes into contact with matter, and so needn't be given as evidence for a "painter".

Finally, if the universe is like a painting, then is the "painter" of the universe like an actual painter: fallible, colluding with others to produce his masterpiece from pre-created substances? This would definitely tighten the analogy, but would go against the attributes given of at least the Christian God.
impactyourworld89

Con

Thank you for your prompt reply and I am sorry I didn't get to this yesterday, my internet was going crazy.

Ok, my opponent gave two more options of how the universe could have gotten here. I will point out the flaws of each.

"4) The universe existed timelessly before the Big Bang."
This option would fall under the second category. If it existed timelessly, it has always existed. And I have already disproved this theory in the previous argument.

"5) The universe is finite, but didn't have a beginning."
This option is once again impossible. The earth is falling apart. So that means it has to end. Anything that ends and that is finite, has to have a beginning.

Ok, now onto the second reason why I believe there is proof God exists. It is the complexity of Life.

Design is not hard to recognize. This amazing complexity that permeates all of life is another reason why more and more scientists are concluding an intelligent designer must exist.

Let's consider some examples of complex life forms. First, let's consider the human body. It has an amazingly complex:

- Nervous system
- Cardiovascular system
- Reproductive system
- Skeletal system
- Digestive System
- Ability to heal itself and to fight off diseases.

I find it difficult to believe that the human body could have come into existence by some mindless process, apart from an incredibly intelligent designer, even given millions of years.

You could leave the barren side of a mountain exposed to wind, rain, the forces of nature, chance and millions of years of time and you would never get a Mt. Rushmore, let alone a living, breathing human being. Why? It takes intelligence. You need intelligent intervention. (It took 400 intelligent workers fourteen years (1927-1941) to carve those four faces. And George and Abe just stare at you. They don't talk. They don't smile. They don't do anything. How much more intelligence would it take to create a living breathing human being? Good question.)

It would take great intelligence to create a robot that operates like a human, and it would take even greater intelligence to create a real human being.

No one alive today would believe that the faces of Mt. Rushmore came about by millions of years of erosion, wind, rain and undirected random acts. And yet atheists believe that real-life human beings with 206 bones, 640 muscles, and a heart that beats over 10,000 times a day are the product of a mindless, random series of accidents.

Not only is the body as a whole incredibly complex, the individual parts making up the body are highly complex. The late agnostic astronomer Carl Sagan conceded that the brain alone is a "…machine more wonderful than any devised by humans" and that it holds enough information to "fill some twenty million volumes." I do not have enough faith to believe that this "machine more wonderful than any devised by humans" came into being from nothing, by nothing, and then evolved via some mindless, random series of accidents, as evolutionists believe

Consider the human eye. The eye is a ball with a lens on one side and a light sensitive retina made up of rods and cones inside the other. The lens itself has a sturdy protective covering called a cornea and sits over an iris designed to protect the eye from excessive light. The eye contains a fantastic watery substance that is replaced every four hours. Tear glands continuously flush the outside clean. An eyelid sweeps secretions over the cornea to keep it moist. Eyelashes protect it from dust. And extraordinarily fine tuned muscles are attached to the eye that move the eye and shape the lens for the function of focus.

The eye is far more complex and advanced than the world's greatest auto-focus camera that took researchers and developers numerous years and millions of dollars to design and create. Did this amazing piece of complex machinery (the eye) come together by some mindless process and random series of accidents? It's not possible, yet atheists muster up the faith to say "yes" to this question.

Even the most well known Darwinist of all time had difficulties believing that the eye came into being by blind forces. Who am I talking about? Charles Darwin. Darwin himself found it hard to accept the notion that the eye could be the product of evolution.

He conceded that the intricacies of the human eye gave him: "Cold shudders." In his famous book, On The Origin of Species (1859), Charles Darwin said, "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable [matchless] contrivances [plans] for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

Because of this and other reasons, there is a growing list of people that are starting to be skeptical to the theory of Darwinism and evolution. On February 21, 2006 the headlines read: "500 Doctoral Scientists Skeptical of Darwin." This is the statement to which these scientists are attaching their names:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

You can see this growing list at: www.DissentFromDarwin.org

This growing list of scientists who are skeptical of Darwinism (which has now grown to more than 700 scientists) includes scientists from such prestigious institutions as:

U.C. Berkeley
UCLA
Cambridge University
Yale
Princeton
Stanford
MIT
and The Smithsonian

These scientists, who believe in an intelligent designer of the universe, are joining ranks with some of the most brilliant scientists to have ever lived, men like Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, and Blaise Pascal, all who believed in God's existence
Debate Round No. 2
Derrida

Pro

I will begin with a rebuttal of my opponent's counter-objections:

Cosmological Argument

4) "This option would fall under the second category. If it existed timelessly, it has always existed. And I have already disproved this theory in the previous argument."

This seems to me a misinterpretation of my point. To say that something exists timelessly is different to saying that it has existed for an infinite amount of time. I'm saying that there was no time before the Big Bang singularity, and so that it neither began in time, nor existed for an infinite amount of time. To say that something "begins to exist", means that there was a time at which it didn't exist, but there is no such time before the Big Bang, and so didn't begin to exist. Hence, the universe is finite, but there was no time before the universe, and so it didn't require a cause because it didn't arise out of a previous time.

Think of it this way: God is supposed to have created the universe, and with it time itself. But which category does God fall into? God couldn't have always existed, because God created time itself. If God caused Himself to exist, then why is it impossible for the universe to do so? If God was created by another being, then that being must have been created by another, and so on to absurdity. This shows that my opponent's three categories cannot be the only options. Even though I don't know in which way the universe came about, I know that positing God isn't a valid explanation.

5) "This option is once again impossible. The earth is falling apart. So that means it has to end. Anything that ends and that is finite, has to have a beginning."

I don't see why it's impossible. As I have shown, this wouldn't mean that the universe is infinite, as the universe would shrink over a number of infinitesimal time slices. You only say that having an end entails having a beginning because you don't believe it possible for something to be finite but without a beginning. Why is that?

Also, my objection to the impossibility of (2) stands, and the cosmological argument doesn't necessarily show that the supposed "cause" of the universe is a personal or supernatural entity.

Teleological Argument

The argument presented by my opponent in the second round is a more thoroughly argued one than in the first round, but still objectionable.

"Design is not hard to recognize. This amazing complexity that permeates all of life is another reason why more and more scientists are concluding an intelligent designer must exist."

That design is "not hard to recognize" is a value judgement, dependent on the likelihood of life coming about due to chance and the laws of nature. However, this is a calculation that we simply cannot make, as it involves working out how likely it would be for certain features of life to come about given events that happened millions of years ago. However, we have lots of evidence that such alterations did happen, and a theory to show how this happened.

The theory is very complicated, and the evidence quite subtle, though nonetheless compelling, so I will only be able to give a brief outline of both.

The Theory of Evolution

The theory of Natural Selection by random mutation and other evolutionary processes (Random drift, horizontal genetic transfer, sexual selection, etc...) states that animals inherit certain properties from their parents or originators. This process, however, is imperfect, leading to mutations, some beneficial, some fatal, though most are harmless. Because some of these mutations confer a greater chance of survival, and thus reproduction, these beneficial mutations are passed down to a greater extent than the others, because more offspring with the mutation survive. Because of this, the beneficial mutations amass, creating very complex features, most of which work either independently or in assembly with other structures to a beneficial end, (By definition of the mutations that survive in the gene pool). Because these mutations seem beneficial and unlikely, at first glance they seem to need design, which is the best way we know for producing such objects. However, at the time these mutations were formed, they were purposeless, having occured by chance, and not that unlikely, as these mutations are vast in number, but, as stated before, survive only if they are beneficial.

This has been shown to be a good explanation as to things, such as the eye, can form, the evolution of which has been traced extensively: http://en.wikipedia.org...

What evidence is there for the occurrence of evolution? To answer this would be a debate in itself, but very briefly, I will give several lines of evidence.

- Vestigial Features. These are features that no longer serve a function or purpose that they did in the past, such as deep sea creatures that have grown flaps of skin over otherwise functional eyes, or the defunct leg-bones in certain snakes: http://www.talkorigins.org...

- Atavisms. These are characteristics that are no longer possessed by the animal, but is nonetheless stored in their genetic makeup, that resurface occasionally for no real reason. Such atavisms show a genetic history of the animal, and instances of atavisms include tails in humans, and instances of extra toes in horses: http://www.talkorigins.org...

- Transitional Forms. There are many instances of transitional forms in the fossil record, such as those showing the link between reptiles and birds (http://www.talkorigins.org...), fish and tetrapods (http://www.talkorigins.org...), and humans and old-earth apes (http://www.talkorigins.org...).

"Because of this and other reasons, there is a growing list of people that are starting to be skeptical to the theory of Darwinism and evolution. On February 21, 2006 the headlines read: "500 Doctoral Scientists Skeptical of Darwin." This is the statement to which these scientists are attaching their names:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.""

This sounds like an impressive number at first, though several skeptical considerations have to be taken into account. Firstly, the statement is strangely ambiguous and open to interpretation. All scientists are skeptical about evolution to the extent that there is a tiny possibility that it is wrong. Because of this, the second statement, and possibly the first, could be accepted by most scientists if put forth in the right guise. Furthermore, "darwinism" might be taken as evolutionary theory before neodarwinism, or the "modern evolutionary synthesis". Finally, many of the scientists on the list have PhD's unrelated to biology, such as "astrophysics", or even "philosophy".

The fact that pre-darwinian scientists believed in a designer isn't surprising, given the commonality or religion and ostracism of heretics at the time.

Final Thoughts
Based on my last debate, I would like to end by rebutting the Argument from Faith, the idea that faith is a good reason for belief. Faith isn't a good reason for believing in God for the same reason having faith in the slot-machines, after losing half your money, isn't a good reason for trying again. For a belief to be reasonable, it has to be likely for that belief to be true, but we can only know this given evidence that makes the belief likely. This causal relationship is the foundation of proper belief, as otherwise it would be reasonable to believe that your money will be refunded by the slot-machine sometime soon, even though this becomes less likely every time you pull the lever.
impactyourworld89

Con

To close with my final argument

My opponent said,

"To say that something "begins to exist", means that there was a time at which it didn't exist, but there is no such time before the Big Bang, and so didn't begin to exist. Hence, the universe is finite, but there was no time before the universe, and so it didn't require a cause because it didn't arise out of a previous time.

Think of it this way: God is supposed to have created the universe, and with it time itself. But which category does God fall into? God couldn't have always existed, because God created time itself. If God caused Himself to exist, then why is it impossible for the universe to do so? If God was created by another being, then that being must have been created by another, and so on to absurdity"

Nobody created God. Everything that BEGINS to exist does require a cause, but the Bible says that God is Spirit and eternal, or without beginning. That being the case, He did not need a maker, or a cause. He is the Uncaused cause, or Creator of all things.

My opponent said,

"This has been shown to be a good explanation as to things, such as the eye, can form, the evolution of which has been traced extensively"

If Darwin himself doubted the evolution of the eye, why is it that no one else seems to? Darwin created this and yet he didn't believe it? Do you see a problem with this?

Mutations by chemical reactions (how mutation would have to start in the first place) are impossible to form without proteins forming. Without this happening, life could never appear because proteins are such a fundamental component that make life possible. The simplest protein of life ribonuclease is formed by 124 strands of amino acids. This protein performs a vital task in the chemistry of life. If the amino acids were to link up in the wrong order or if even one of the amino acids were the wrong type then the resulting protein would be unable to perform ribonuclease's job. Thus if the first amino acid were "Glu" instead of "Lys" the protein would no longer be able to do the job required of it.

The simplest strand of protein contains around 17 amino acids. There are usually about 20 amino acids, but we'll be generous right now. So in order to form this strand of protein, for the chances of the first amino acid forming on the strand to be "Lys" it would be 1 in 17. These odds do not sound bad at all. However, the chance of forming a protein with "Lys" as its first amino acid and "Glu" as its second amino acid is 1 in 17 TIMES 1 in 17 which calculates to be 1 in 289. Going further the probability of forming a protein whose first three amino acids are "Lys" "Glu" and "Thr" in that order are 1 in 17 times 1 in 17 times 1 in 17 or 1 in 4,913. If you are to complete this entire calculation you would find that the odds of making this protein by chance is approximately 1 in 10 to the 152 power. In order to illustrate how low these odds are the probability of forming ribonuclease by chance is roughly equivalent to the probability of a poker player drawing a royal flush 19 times in a row. And ribonuclease is just a "simple" protein. There are some proteins that are required for our body to work properly that contain more than 10,000 amino acids.

My opponent closed in saying,

"Based on my last debate, I would like to end by rebutting the Argument from Faith, the idea that faith is a good reason for belief"

I would like to conclude that being an atheist requires as much faith if not more, that there is no God than it does faith that there is one. How is having faith in God any more absurd than having faith that there is not one. I believe that it requires more faith to believe that the universe created itself from a big explosion, that we are just a pile of random atoms, or that we evolved from monkeys, or that our brains or our eye are no different than a computer or a camera, than it does to believe that an intelligent creator has made us with a purpose. I would rather be considered to be made in my God's image than to be considered the product of a monkey.

I will close with this, ( I know this was a short rebuttal but…) If you are an atheist, and you are right, what do you win? But if I am right, think what you have to lose.

Thank you for this debate Derridia, it was very interesting and at times, challenging. I have enjoyed it.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
The idea of something being unreasonable because science doesn't support it is unreasonable.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
We know that God exists from intuition, not from observation.
Posted by Agent_D 9 years ago
Agent_D
to derrida,

I dont see any reasons why you have to decline my proposal to debate with you, that assertions are made by you, and i want you to proved to me you very foundation " Argument based on evidence"

God Exist. I believe and strongly believe. prove to me that he is doesnt need to exist.
Posted by pazmusik 9 years ago
pazmusik
I give my vote to Derrida. Overall he presented his arguments more clearly and addressed all points that Impact presented.

Impact's performance is strong, but her arguments are untenable and have been debunked before. She would do well to research new and philosophically stronger arguments for "reasonable" faith.

Please do not argue that atheism requires faith. You do not need faith to have a lack of belief, any more than you need faith to have a lack of politics or a lack of melanin pigment (albino). This is an argument that needs to be retired.

Also, ending your debate with a stilted version of Pascal's Wager is a guaranteed way of losing a debate. Pascal's Wager has long been derided as a very poor reason to believe in ANYTHING, much less an omnipotent entity.

I highly recommend: atheism.about.com

- paz
Posted by Derrida 9 years ago
Derrida
I would just like to say that, for those interested in finding out more about the theory of evolution, it has progressed a lot since Darwin's time. Darwin didn't know about things like the structure of the DNA molecule, and only knew the cell as a bag of random gelatinous substances.

I would also highly recommend looking at the talk.origins website, or reading Eugenie. C. Scott's "Evolution vs Creationism", or any of Richard Dawkins' popularizations, such as "The Blind Watchmaker", or "The Selfish Gene".

In the future, I'll probably debate single arguments, for instance the Kalam Cosmological Argument, or the Argument to Design, so that they don't go over the edge, as I feel they have done here.
Posted by DoubleXMinus 9 years ago
DoubleXMinus
Plus, going over it again... it feels like she simply went back and forth from her bible to some academic textbook. So while you're getting lost and redirected from the main point, she brushes off any opposing argument without any valid substance....
Posted by DoubleXMinus 9 years ago
DoubleXMinus
Derrida stayed to the point and brought together different components based on logic and what he has intelligently concluded from his studies throughout his life.

Impact lost in my eyes as soon as she resorted to, "Well, the bible says...." And followed that by implying that since certain individuals have believed in God we should too.

Well I, for one -- am very glad they all didn't decide to jump off the exquisite Mt. Rushmore.

I also found it a little annoying that she seemed incapable of separating evoluion itself from Darwin. They are not one in the same as Derrida corrrectly tried to point out.

Just as God didn't create this universe, Darwin didn't create evolution.
Posted by 3DCrew 9 years ago
3DCrew
My vote went to "impact" although both of you did a good job with the debate. We need to remember that if there is a God then being able to figure him out is, by design, not possible. God's own name describes him best, "I Am". He just simply "Is" which is a concept the our limited minds cannot grasp. That there is design in "this place" is without question even with the limited perspective we do have.

A painting, granted, is a bad example as someone from another culture might not even see it as art. That wasn't impact's point though. The fact that it was created by "someone" was the point. The more complex the design (ex. the human eye) the stronger the argument. One only has to look a the incredible fine-tuning of the universe to support God's created beings to end this debate.
Posted by Juicyk 9 years ago
Juicyk
GOD IS REAL.TRY HIM AND SEE. HOW DO YOU THINK YOU GET ALL OF YOUR BLESSING? GOD IS NOT VISIBLE. BUT HE IS BELIEVED TOHAVE THE HIGHEST POWER..THINH ABOUT THIS PEOPLE CAN PUT OUT ANY INFORMATION, BUT WHO KNOWS THE TRUTH..
Posted by dollarphotography.com 9 years ago
dollarphotography.com
no man alive is able to create a planet.
no man alive is able to put a 100 foot oak tree into an acorn.
no man alive is able to create water.
no man alive is able to create the sun.
no man alive is able to collect dead parts of dead humans, put them back together, give them life so that they could possibly be a productive human being in society.

GOD is not what you think HE is. GOD is LOVE. here in the world of words and science there is more support saying GOD lives than no GOD lives. if you have children how is it possible to be so blind to say there is no GOD?
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by oboeman 9 years ago
oboeman
Derridaimpactyourworld89Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by desk19 9 years ago
desk19
Derridaimpactyourworld89Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Derridaimpactyourworld89Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by johnwooding1 9 years ago
johnwooding1
Derridaimpactyourworld89Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
Derridaimpactyourworld89Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Elfsindor92 9 years ago
Elfsindor92
Derridaimpactyourworld89Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by JMS 9 years ago
JMS
Derridaimpactyourworld89Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by MarxistKid 9 years ago
MarxistKid
Derridaimpactyourworld89Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by pazmusik 9 years ago
pazmusik
Derridaimpactyourworld89Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by righty10294 9 years ago
righty10294
Derridaimpactyourworld89Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03