The Instigator
BradK
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
CamConCrafter
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

It's More Likely That God Was Made Up, Rather Than Naturally Observed

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 1 vote the winner is...
BradK
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/20/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 896 times Debate No: 55070
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (1)

 

BradK

Pro

Terms and Conditions of the Debate:

(1)First round is for acceptance and demonstrating that you understand the resolution. If you do not explain the resolution in your own words in round 1 and satisfactorily demonstrate to me that you understand the resolution, the debate will not take place and I win by default.

(2)This debate is not concerned with philosophical possibilities. It is possible to conceive of a planet run by hobgoblins, where gravity is stronger than electromagnetism, but the ability to conceive of that scenario does mean that humankind should automatically have an interest in such a possibility and invest research in anti-hobgoblin weaponry. Likewise, just because you can conceive of god, does not mean that humankind should take interest in the ramifications of the existence of such a thing. There has been no evidence for god that has satisfied the scientific community of cosmologists, and in accepting the debate, you accept this.

(3)You shall not misuse the word "evidence". Within this debate, to be clear, the word evidence means "repeatable quantifiable observation, such as measuring the weight of a stone or the charge of an electron". A personal anecdote, such as "I was overwhelmed by the power of god", will not be considered evidence of anything other than your supposed emotional state.

(4)It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of god. Using the statement "it is impossible to prove god exists", or "it is impossible to prove god doesn't exist", is not a valid argument within this debate.

(5)"God" shall be defined as in this quote from George Carlin, from Con's round 1 until the end of the debate:

If it's true that we're all from the center of a star (every atom in each of us from the center of a star) then we're all the same thing; even a coke machine or a cigarette butt in the street in buffalo is made out of atoms that came from a star. They've all been recycled thousands of times as have you and I. And therefore, it's only ME out there, so what is there to be afraid of? What is there that needs solace seeking? Nothing. There's nothing to be afraid of because it's all us. The trouble is we have been separated by being born and given a name and an identity and being individuated. We've been separated from the oneness and that's what religion exploits; that people have this yearning to be part of the overall "one" again. So they exploit that, they call it "god", they say he has rules, and I think it's cruel. I think you can do it absent from religion.

If you think there is a man-like, all-powerful deity in the sky, or some other unexplored region of existence, you cannot refer to him as "God" (starting from Con1's round 1 until the end of the debate), instead you must refer to him as "The Creator of the Universe", "The thing that listens to our prayers, evaluates the morality of our life, and sends our consciousness to some unexplored region of existence following death", or anything else that specifically describes what you are trying to get at.

---

Here I shall explain the resolution in my own words, using my analogy with Bigfoot:

The origin of Bigfoot, as far as we can scientifically be certain, was that a man saw something move through the bushes and to make up for the lack of sensory perception, he superstitiously assumed that it was a tall, ape-like beast capable of mutilating him to death (the brain can imagine things that aren't there, refer to the image below). He described his encounter with other people, and then other people’s brains started doing the same thing, except they hadn’t even seen the thing in the bushes, they just heard the bewildered woodsman describe his close encounter with an unidentified object.




My argument is that God has the same kind of origins as Bigfoot. No one really knows who the first man was to say “There’s a God in the sky who created everything and has almighty power over us all”, but no such being has actually been observed (just like no Bigfoot has ever been observed). One of our ancestors was probably out in a field and saw lightning, and his brain incorrectly filled in the rest. It was just a static discharge, but our ancestor thought it was an angry man in the sky hurling blazing arrows down at earth. This is the most likely origin of the conception of a powerful being that sits above us, created everything, and has complete control over all of us.

I ask you to explain the resolution in your own words in round 1 as well.

---

Accept the debate only if you accept the terms and conditions. I expect an honest, clean debate.
CamConCrafter

Con

The creator of the universe is real due to the evidence of Jesus and other mystical things the bible was not wrote for nothing i hope for a good debate :)
Debate Round No. 1
BradK

Pro

I'd like to point out, Con, that you have NOT explained the resolution in your own words. The reason I asked you to do this, is so that we are both aware of the resolution we are debating. I'm not convinced that you understand what you are debating against.

I'll proceed anyways. But next round, you HAVE to meet item 1 of the T&C (obviously it will be round 2 though, there is nothing we can do about that now).

---

So the resolution is that the thing that Muslims, Christians and Jews pray to and worship, is made up. The "big man" has only been described through written and spoken word. I am not aware, nor is the scientific community aware, of any independent method to arrive at the same conclusions as Islam, Christianity, or Judaism. In saying this, I open the chance for you to provide any evidence to the contrary.

Jesus was man. If he were born of a virgin, he would have been a woman because virgin birth, or parthenogenesis in mammals results in only XX (female) chromosomes, not XY (male) chromosomes. And according to this article in the journal Nature [1], (referenced in National Geographic [2]), the conclusion was:

"Until the role of imprinted genes—many of which have been implicated in disease—is better understood, it is safe to say that Dad is still an essential part of reproduction."

So in short, there's evidence against Jesus being born of a virgin. You have not provided any evidence FOR Jesus being born of a virgin, as according to Christianity. Well, you only said 3 words, "evidence of Jesus", which is frankly pitiful. I would hope you would put up more of an argument than 3 words.

---

In response to your claim that the Bible was not written for no reason, I have to ask, what reason was it written for then? To paraphrase you, you said "the Bible was written for a reason" ... ok ... what reason?

---

So, in the next round, please support your arguments, and read the terms and conditions of this debate and familiarize yourself with them. Thank you.

---


[1]http://www.nature.com...
[2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

CamConCrafter

Con

CamConCrafter forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
BradK

Pro

Waiting for response from opponent.
CamConCrafter

Con

CamConCrafter forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
BradK

Pro

Please only accept a debate if you want to have a debate. Thank you
CamConCrafter

Con

CamConCrafter forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
@ BradK,
I don't mind people like deists who think a God may exist as it makes them appear comfortable with their lives to believe in an instigator of the universe and the laws of nature, these people support science and evolution as they way their god works.

But to adhere to scripture written by people who knew less about reality than a currently living six year old, is absolutely ridiculous.

Aye M8!
Posted by BradK 2 years ago
BradK
By the way, mankind is really what "god" is. People think of the mercy and kindness of themselves as an extension of themselves. Cut out the mythological crap. You and the rest of the human race are the most powerful thing in the universe that you know of. The god in the Bible or Qur'an is just some ancient angry-man-in-the-sky superstition.
Posted by BradK 2 years ago
BradK
He chickened out because I became his god and gave him no mercy.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Cam chickened out!
Wonder Why?
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Maybe by Wrote he means Rote as the Bible was handed down by rote for 35 years before getting written into the Gospels. Thus they lack any accuracy.
:-D~
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Could wind up to being an interesting debate, but having a slow start.
Posted by BradK 3 years ago
BradK
And just a comment for anyone who picked up on this little thing: It would seem that I'm going against my own T&C by having the debate. Well, first of all there's no way to cancel the debate, that I am aware of, so it's better to at least write something than nothing. And second of all, if con doesn't understand what he's debating against, then technically it's a shouting match, or something else other than a debate. Obviously, to have a debate, both parties need to know what they are trying to support or disprove. So it's not a debate until con does what I asked him to, it's just an exercise for me to point out any flaws he might have in his reasoning as he posts each "debate" round.
Posted by Jman0056 3 years ago
Jman0056
By wrote do you mean written
Posted by BradK 3 years ago
BradK
CamConCrafter, it appears that you didn't read the "terms and conditions" part. You have to explain what the resolution of the debate is, in your own words, so I know that you actually understand where I'm coming from.

All you said was "The creator of the universe is real due to the evidence of Jesus and other mystical things the bible was not wrote for nothing". Which would have been fine, but I want you to explain in your own words, what "It's More Likely That God Was Made Up, Rather Than Naturally Observed" means. I didn't see anything in the first round that explains what this means in a unique way.

So please read before accepting next time.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
BradKCamConCrafterTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided no argument, no sources and gave Pro a conduct point or abandoning the debate. Maybe Pro's argument may have been just too scary for Con to attempt a rebuttal. Either way it is not the sign of a good debater.