It's More Likely That God Was Made Up, Rather Than Naturally Observed
Debate Rounds (4)
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.
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 , (referenced in National Geographic ), 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.
CamConCrafter forfeited this round.
Waiting for response from opponent.
CamConCrafter forfeited this round.
Please only accept a debate if you want to have a debate. Thank you
CamConCrafter forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 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:||6||0|
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.
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.