The Instigator
Nzrsaa
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
GenesisQ
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

It is reasonable to believe in the existence of 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Nzrsaa
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/1/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 580 times Debate No: 39803
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Nzrsaa

Pro

First round for acceptance.

By 'God' I mean the God of the monotheistic religions.
GenesisQ

Con

First of all thier should be one way the human race should praise for or thier will think of themselfs as kings so god is real on a level but he is a sprit... http://eb500196.linkbucks.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Nzrsaa

Pro

Well I'm going to keep my arguments simple as i'm not really sure what my opponent just said... Did he agree with me? Anyway:

Teleological argument
If you saw a watch lying in the middle of the forest, you wouldn't think that it was uncaused. Rather, the most logical explanation was that it was designed by a watchmaker. Same with the universe - the complexity and order in both the cosmos and in life on earth is far too complex for it not to be designed by a creator. We can then apply occam's razor to this argument - only one designer is necesaary.

Moral Argument
Where do we get our morals from? If morals are objective, the God exists as the source of moral authority. And there is reason to think that morals are objective - it is fundamentally wrong, for example, to abuse a child. Someone who thinks otherwise is considered evil. So from personal experience, we can say that morals are objective, not subjective where one person's moral opinion is no different to another - the child abuser is no different to a loving parent.
GenesisQ

Con

GenesisQ forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Nzrsaa

Pro

Extend my argument
GenesisQ

Con

GenesisQ forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
GenesisQ

Con

GenesisQ forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Nzrsaa 3 years ago
Nzrsaa
Sure!
Posted by Flipz 3 years ago
Flipz
I would like to debate you on this topic, and I will do a better job than GenesisQ :)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
NzrsaaGenesisQTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
NzrsaaGenesisQTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: A full forfeit from a now-closed spam account. But still, Pro deserves scoring. I gave conduct for the forfeits (obviously), S&G because what Con DID post was gobbledygook, while Pro was readable, and arguments because Pro actually presented a case, and it was never rebutted. I don't have to agree with his position to see that he clearly deserves the win today. I gave Pro sources because of Con's posting of link-spam--this based on another commenter, as I have no intention of clicking on it...Linux may protect me from most viruses, but I've no interest in testing that unnecessarily. The character of the link alone, combined with the nonsense of the round, seem sufficient for the judgment that it was spam so, while Pro did not provide sources, I award the points to him on that basis--a source so unreliable as to be spam or harmful is a net *negative*, making a null value higher.
Vote Placed by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
NzrsaaGenesisQTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't really give an explanatory argument, then he forfeitied. Also he gave one source that has nothing to do with the debate; it was just some spam.