The Instigator
Chrysippus
Con (against)
Winning
65 Points
The Contender
twsurber
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points

Logic Analysis: These arguments prove the existence of God.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 12 votes the winner is...
Chrysippus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,417 times Debate No: 10010
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (63)
Votes (12)

 

Chrysippus

Con

I thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate.

Logic is often a poorly used commodity where religion is concerned; whether arguing for or against the supernatural, many fallacious arguments are posited and accepted as truth.

I stand against the idea that the spiritual can be proven or disproven by physical evidence, or that any system of reasoning that claims to have answered this question is failsafe. I challenge all reasoners to prove their assertions in formal debate.

I contend that the arguments my opponent will post for the existence of God are not logically sound.

RESOLUTION: These arguments prove the existence of God.

DEFINITIONS: By accepting this debate, you agree to accept these definitions for this debate.

God: the one Supreme Being; perfect, omnipotent, omniscient; the creator and ruler of the universe. His known attributes include goodness, holiness, wisdom, independence from His creation, immanence within His creation, immutability, immeasurability, and eternity. (Taken from http://dictionary.reference.com... )

Prove: to establish the truth of.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Exist: to have actual being; be; to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

FORMAT OF DEBATE: By accepting this debate, you are agreeing use this format for this debate.

My opponent will post:
-Any relevant definitions they choose, other than the terms I have already listed;
-Two or three arguments for the existence of God, with at least a couple sentences of explanation; not simply statements. He will be arguing that God does in fact exist; not that he probably exists, or might exist.

Please label each section clearly, to keep the arguments separate.

In my R2, I'll post my opening refutations of each of my opponent's arguments in order, and from there we have a debate. Hope this is instructional and enjoyable for both sides!

To my opponent; best of luck!
twsurber

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for this opportunity.

I affirm the resolution as stated.

Definitions:
**I would like to amend the definition of God by adding the terms: inerrant, infallible, and omnipresent.

Theophany - a manifestation of God in the Bible that is tangible to the human senses. In its most restrictive sense, it is a visible appearance of God in the Old Testament period, often, but not always, in human form. (Packer)

The Bible is the word of God and all scripture is valid. (2 Timothy 3: 16)

Contention 1: God has revealed Himself to man in theophanies. (Thiessen)

Subpoint A) General Revelation: This is found in nature, history, & conscience. He is revealed in nature by its existence, continuity, and preservation. He is revealed in history by His dealings with the children of Israel. Finally, He is revealed in our conscience by feelings of a presence within one's heart. (Thiessen)

Subpoint B) Special Revelation: Those acts of God whereby He makes Himself and His truth known at special times and to specific peoples. (Thiessen)

Some of the theophanies are found in these passages:
1. Genesis 12:7-9–The Lord appeared to Abraham on his arrival in the land God had promised to him and his descendants.
2. Genesis 18:1-33–One day, Abraham had some visitors: two angels and God Himself. He invited them to come to his home, and he and Sarah entertained them. Many commentators believe this could also be a Christophany, a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ.
3. Genesis 32:22-30–Jacob wrestled with what appeared to be a man, but was actually God (vv. 28-30). This may also have been a Christophany.
4. Exodus 3:2 - 4:17–God appeared to Moses in the form of a burning bush, telling him exactly what He wanted him to do.
5. Exodus 24:9-11–God appeared to Moses with Aaron and his sons and the seventy elders.
6. Deuteronomy 31:14-15–God appeared to Moses and Joshuah in the transfer of leadership to Joshua.
7. Job 38–42–God answered Job out of the tempest and spoke at great length in answer to Job's questions.
(http://www.gotquestions.org...)

Contention 2: The belief in the existence of God is corroberated in arguments.
Subpoint A) Cosmological: Everything begun must have had an adequate cause. (Thiessen)
Subpoint B) Teleological: Order and useful arrangement in a system imply intelligence and purpose in the organizing cause. (Thiessen)
Subpoint C) Ontological: There must be something greater than man. (Thiessen)

Contention 3: Scripture confirms the existence of God.
Subpoint A) The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. (Psalm 14:1a)
Subpoint B) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (Revelation 1:8)
Subpoint C) "But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 10:33)

SUMMARY: The above affirms, from a variety of sources, that God does indeed exist.
Debate Round No. 1
Chrysippus

Con

I thank my worthy opponent for accepting this debate. I look forward to a great debate!
_________________
PRELIMINARIES:
The amendment to the definition of God accepted, certainly; but I object to one of the other definitions my opponent provides.

If he is putting it forward as a definition, for me to accept the following:
"The Bible is the word of God and all scripture is valid. (2 Timothy 3: 16)" is tantamount to conceding this debate.

The reasoning runs thus:

The Bible is the word of (written by) God;
The Bible is valid (true);
If the Bible was truly written by God, and the Bible exists; then God exists.
The Bible exists. Ergo, God exists.

This is correct, if the premises are correct. However, a variation of these premises is the whole point of this debate. Accepting this definition will allow circular reasoning at the expense of losing all value for this debate.

For this reason, and as the only source my opponent has quoted to establish this is the Bible itself, I reject this definition. I will treat this as my opponent's first underlying assumption for this debate, rather than a binding definition.

--------

One question: My opponent references Thiessen for most of his points. I confess my ignorance as to who exactly he is referring to, or in which of his works I may find these points. For my benefit, and the audience, could my opponent please clarify this in his next round?
________________
REFUTATIONS:

"Contention 1: God has revealed Himself to man in theophanies."
Subpoint A) General Revelation: This is found in nature, history, & conscience. He is revealed in nature by its existence, continuity, and preservation. He is revealed in history by His dealings with the children of Israel. Finally, He is revealed in our conscience by feelings of a presence within one's heart."

This statement gives me little to work with at the moment; I'm not quite sure how my opponent believes he can make a proof, or even a strong probability, out of subjective experiences. I must wait for my opponent to develop this further before I can do much; however there are two points that, even at this stage, I can contend.

"He is revealed in nature by its existence, continuity, and preservation."
Translated: God exists because the universe exists? As long as there is even one other possible explanation for the existence of the universe, this argument is a non-sequitur.

"He is revealed in history by His dealings with the children of Israel."
If you are basing this on the Old Testament, you have the same problem I deal with below, subpoint B. If you are not, then I assume that you have found another account of Israeli history, contemporary with King David, Moses, Job, Abraham, etc, that does not claim to be written by God?

"Subpoint B) Special Revelation: Those acts of God whereby He makes Himself and His truth known at special times and to specific peoples."

Under this heading, my opponent posts a list of references to the Bible; a list of theophanies taken directly from his source. The problem is that these are ultimately irrelevant to the contention. If the Bible is true, then God exists; and there is no need to discuss physical appearances. If the Bible is not true, then we can discount everything it says about God; theophanies included. Either way, this list is superfluous.

"Contention 2: The belief in the existence of God is corroborated in arguments.
Subpoint A) Cosmological: Everything begun must have had an adequate cause. (Thiessen)
Subpoint B) Teleological: Order and useful arrangement in a system imply intelligence and purpose in the organizing cause. (Thiessen)
Subpoint C) Ontological: There must be something greater than man. (Thiessen)

Here is the meat of my opponent's round. These are the arguments I hope to see my opponent develop; most of his other contentions will take us into a debate on the reliability of the Bible, for which I submit we simply do not have space.

His entries are just placeholders for the real arguments. My refutations will have to wait, as I do not know how my opponent intends to argue any of these.

In the meantime, here are links to each of the arguments he brought up:
A. Cosmological (argument from cause) http://plato.stanford.edu...
B. Teleological (argument from design) http://www.iep.utm.edu...
C. Ontological (argument from definition) http://www.iep.utm.edu...

As I see it, this is the only contention that my opponent has any chance of affirming the resolution with. He has not yet argued these points; I strongly urge him to do so in his next round. All of his other points depend directly on the integrity of the Bible, which depends on the existence of God. They are, and can be, of no help to him in proving God's existence.

Contention 3: Scripture confirms the existence of God.

This contention is an exercise in circular reasoning. I have dealt with this line of thinking twice already this round; but for complete clarity, let us look at it one more time.

The Bible says God exists, as demonstrated by my opponent's references.
The Bible says that God revealed/spoke/wrote the Bible.
The Bible says that God cannot lie.
Therefore the Bible is true.
Therefore God exists.

Alternately, it can be put this way:

We know God exists because the Bible says He does;
We know the Bible is true because God revealed/spoke/wrote it.

These statements commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent, and cannot be used to prove anything. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
________________
CONCLUSION:
My opponent's first and third contentions do not prove God's existence. In fact, they are both dependent on God's existence to be logically valid; and his third contention is an example of circular reasoning even then. He has not yet argued his second contention. I look forward to seeing his development of these classical defenses of God's existence in his next round of arguments.

To my opponent then, with thanks.
twsurber

Pro

ANSWERS TO ROUND TWO REFUTATIONS:
Henry Thiessen; Lectures in Systematic Theology.

My C-1; subpoint a: General revelation-->Nature, God created the earth and all that is therein. If He didn't exist, He couldn't have created it. I know of no other possible explanation for the creator of the earth. -->History, The small remnant of the Children of Israel (aka Jacob) could not have survived to this day and become the nation of Israel without divine intervention. The only entity capable of this type of divine intervention is God. Since Israel does exist, and only God could have sustained them, God does exist.

My C-1; subpoint b: Special revelation is relevant because if God did not exist, how could He have revealed Himself to people? These had to be actual events as they were recorded in history.

My C-2: I thank my opponent for providing these links. As I believe that my opponent is already a believer and familiar with these arguments, I included them to support my case for those who are less familiar. They actually require little development. I can liken them to elements of a geometry proof. On their own, they are simply pieces of a puzzle, but in combination, they point to only one possible conclusion which is God.

My C-3: I expected the Bible to be rejected as a legitimate source. There are many records of written history. Are the Dead Sea scrolls invalid? Are the history textbooks used in public schools, private schools, or colleges invalid? Which documents should we hold as credible and which should we hold as unreliable?

MY OPPONENT's CASE
Thus far my opponent has provided nothing for me to challenge.

MY CASE Round 2:
I would like to introduce a definition of belief & know.
belief: accept as true; take to be true; think: judge or regard; look upon; judge; be confident about something;
know: be familiar or acquainted with a person or an object
(wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

Would you believe me if I said that I knew the players of my jv baseball team at school?
Would you believe me if I said I knew Rajai Davis of the Oakland A's or Lionel Chattelle formerly of the NY Mets, both of which were former team mates of mine?
Perhaps the latter requires a little more faith to believe?
Now would you believe me if I said I knew God? Perhaps this requires even more faith. However, as surely as I am typing this, I state that I not only know my jv baseball players, not only do I know "Raj" or "L Train", but I also know God.

I ask you this, how can I know these people if they do not exist? Thank you!
Debate Round No. 2
Chrysippus

Con

I thank my opponent for his polite response.

__________________
CONCERN:

Before I return to refuting my opponent's case, I need to address a point of concern.
"Thus far my opponent has provided nothing for me to challenge."
My case is an entirely negative one. My opponent is trying to produce arguments that can establish God's existence. My burden is to refute my opponent's arguments.

I have, however, produced somewhat for my opponent to challenge; namely my refutations of his arguments. I suggest he do so, as he has not yet addressed any of them.
________________
REFUTATIONS:
===
C1
===
a): General revelation:
I. Nature: "God created the earth and all that is therein. If He didn't exist, He couldn't have created it."
Correct. If He doesn't exist, He cannot have created anything. However, it does not follow: the Earth exists, therefore God must have created it. There are alternate explanations for the Earth's existence; God's existence is not self evident from the existence of the Earth.

"I know of no other possible explanation for the creator of the earth."
I'm sorry.

II. History: "The small remnant of the Children of Israel (aka Jacob) could not have survived to this day and become the nation of Israel without divine intervention. The only entity capable of this type of divine intervention is God. Since Israel does exist, and only God could have sustained them, God does exist."
If my opponent can prove that God has intervened in history, then God's existence will no longer be in question. However, this particular argument does not suffice. Let's examine this in detail:

"The small remnant of the Children of Israel (aka Jacob) could not have survived to this day and become the nation of Israel without divine intervention."
Many small remnant peoples survive to this day, despite persecution, conquest, and attempted annihilation. Two examples:

1) the Roma, also known as the Gypsies. Nomadic people of Europe, of suspected Indian extraction. Subject to persecution, race-killings, and attempts at genocide for at least the last millennium. http://en.wikipedia.org...

2) The Cymry, labeled Welsh (strangers) by the Anglo-Saxons. Subject to racial perseution until the 1700's; conquered by Edward I of England in 1282; has been subject ever since. Recently has been trying to regain its independence. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Neither of these are mentioned in the Bible as having been specially preserved; yet they exist. Survival does not seem to be limited to those sustained by divine intervention; it is entirely possible that Israel survived to the present without any help from any God.

This premise is incorrect.

"The only entity capable of this type of divine intervention is God."
By definition, any divine intervention requires a God.

"Since Israel does exist, and only God could have sustained them, God does exist."
But my opponent has not established that Israel did not survive on their own; nor that God has intervened to prevent their demise. I refuse to assume either of these for this debate; nor will I fill in the blanks in his arguments. Until such time as he gives evidence for his claims, this argument is invalid.

-----------------------

b): "Special revelation is relevant because if God did not exist, how could He have revealed Himself to people? These had to be actual events as they were recorded in history."

My opponent has not given any evidence that God has revealed Himself to anyone; nor has he given instances of God revealing Himself in history. The only instances he cited are to be found only in the Bible; and as I have already shown, it is circular reasoning to argue God's existence from what the Bible says, since the validity of the Bible depends on God's existence.

In the absence of evidence, this point remains in the realm of opinion.

===
C2
===
"I thank my opponent for providing these links."

My opponent is welcome; I hope he enjoys reading them.

"As I believe that my opponent is already a believer and familiar with these arguments, I included them to support my case for those who are less familiar."

I am a believer. I am also his opponent. I am not going to fill in the holes in his arguments; it is up to him to make a coherent case.

As it turns out, I am familiar with these arguments; familiar enough to know that they are all invalid, or probably so.

A. Cosmological (argument from cause) assumes without proof that there must be a first cause; when an infinite causality loop or a eternal universe are also possible.
B. Teleological (argument from design) only indicates a higher probability for God creating rather than unguided evolution; and then only if its assumptions are correct.
C. Ontological (argument from definition) attempts to define God into existence; possibly the most ambitious semantics argument in history. The problem with this is that anything, even non-extant things, can be defined.

"They actually require little development."

If my opponent chooses not to present his arguments, he ought not be surprised if they are ignored. If he does not state, explain, and apply these arguments, why should I spend time refuting what he does not seriously posit?

"...in combination, they point to only one possible conclusion which is God."

Only if they are all correct, which he has not shown.

===
C3:
===

"I expected the Bible to be rejected as a legitimate source."
Then why did he not defend its verity in his first round? And why has he still not defended it?

It is vital to all the arguments that my opponent has yet raised that we be able to trust the Bible; yet he has not defended it, only cited it. A biased, unverified source can hardly be considered legitimate, and he has given us no reason to consider the Bible in any other light.

"There are many records of written history. Are the Dead Sea scrolls invalid? Are the history textbooks used in public schools, private schools, or colleges invalid? Which documents should we hold as credible and which should we hold as unreliable?"
Good questions. I add two to that list: can a book that tells of things unverified by any outside witness be trusted? Why should we not consign the Bible to the fiction sections of our libraries?

===
C4:
===

Note: I am speaking directly to my opponent, contrary to form, for this point.

"Would you believe me if I said that I knew the players of my jv baseball team at school?"
Perhaps. It sounds reasonable; I have no way of knowing this for certain, though.

"Would you believe me if I said I knew Rajai Davis of the Oakland A's or Lionel Chattelle formerly of the NY Mets, both of which were former team mates of mine?"
Maybe. This is a verifiable claim; if you offered evidence that they were your team-mates, I would probably believe you.

"Perhaps the latter requires a little more faith to believe?"
No, it takes more evidence. It is a more improbable claim, and requires better proof.

"Now would you believe me if I said if I said I knew God? Perhaps this requires even more faith."
I do not have to have faith in you. For reasons of common courtesy, I choose to believe that your unprovable and subjective claim is either:
a) true, or b) something you believe in good faith to be true.

I do not have any reason to believe that such IS true on your mere word, though. Your claim remains, not believed, but uncriticized.

"However, as surely as I am typing this, I state that I not only know my jv baseball players, not only do I know "Raj" or "L Train", but I also know God."

Your word, only. Recognize that your unsupported word does not constitute evidence for the existence of any of those people, please.
_______________
CONCLUSION:
My opponent has yet to verify his only source for God: the Bible. He also has left untouched my accusations of circular reasoning. He has not yet come close to proving God
twsurber

Pro

If you look at "refutations" you will see that I did address each item.

C-1: While, I appreciate your candor and sarcasm, God is the only explanation for the earth's existence.

I didn't state that God protected the Gypsies nor the Welsh. Further, God created the angel Michael and charged him to oversee the nation of Israel.

I did not state that the Bible depends on God's existence, but that brings up a good point. Since the Bible is God inspired, it's existence evidence of God's existence.

My opponent validated the scientific arguments of cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments by posting links to them. Since my opponent has proven them to be valid, "Only if they are all correct, which he has not shown". My opponent took care of that for me, thereby giving me the win. Thanks!

Even in a debate I would be careful about consigning the Bible to the fiction section.

Here are other links to attest to the validity of the Bible:
http://www.creatingfutures.net...
http://teens4evangelism.wordpress.com...
http://www.anunseenworld.com...

Former athiest Lee Strobel went to great lengths to discredit the Bible as fiction only to find that the Bible was indeed valid. The Dead Sea Scrolls written by the Essenes corroborate the Bible.

Since the Bible exists and was written by inspiration of God, God does exist. As requested, the Bible is now defended.
Debate Round No. 3
Chrysippus

Con

I thank my opponent for his patience with me. I hope he understands the pressures, the delicate choice of words, involved in arguing against the supposed proofs of one's own religion.

This has been an interesting experience. I am grateful for the opportunity to examine this contention from the other side; it has been educational for me, and - I hope - for my opponent as well.

I will limit this post to addressing each of my opponent's statements in order, and posting my final refutation of my opponent's arguments.

-----------------
ANALYSIS OF MY OPPONENT'S STATEMENTS:

"If you look at "refutations" you will see that I did address each item."
...except when I pointed out your circular reasoning. And though you addressed each item, you did not solve any of the problems I indicted, nor show why your original was correct.

"...God is the only explanation for the earth's existence."
This is patently untrue. There are far too many explanations for the earth's existence to list all of them here, even if all I did for the rest of this round was to provide links. Are they all philosophically satisfying, physically plausible, or currently popular? Of course not; yet still, they exist.

"I didn't state that God protected the Gypsies nor the Welsh."
No, you didn't. I gave these a examples of other "remnants" that have survived centuries of persecution; my point being by way of analogy, Israel might very well have survived in the self-same way. Israel's present existence is not prima facie proof of God's existence, as there are viable naturalistic explanations for it.

"Further, God created the angel Michael and charged him to oversee the nation of Israel."
Is this even scripturally sound? I realize there is a Jewish tradition to this effect, but I'd like to see chapter and verse on this... preferably in the comments section, as it is rather irrelevant to this debate. Even if you can show the verses this comes from, how does this help your case at all? Again, it is pointless to try to prove God from the words of the Bible, as the Bible's verity DEPENDS ENTIRELY ON GOD'S VERY EXISTENCE.

Circular arguments prove nothing.

I think I've mentioned that before...

"I did not state that the Bible depends on God's existence, but that brings up a good point. Since the Bible is God inspired, it's existence evidence of God's existence."

Sigh...

First, I was the one to mention (as in: to attempt vainly to get across, to repeat in a fevered mantra, to write in giant letters and post on a billboard...) the simple fact that the Bible is only true IF God exists. Yes, it is a good point, but you missed it entirely. I brought it up to prevent you from making the same mistake again. It didn't work, I see...

Second, to make your statement accurate, "Since" should be changed to "If." If the Bible was inspired/written by God, then He must exist. You have no proof for the premise; thus, this argument does not prove the consequent.

Again.

This makes the third or fourth incarnation of this argument in this debate, and it has not gotten any better for repetition. It is still circular reasoning, for all the same reasons I have pointed out so many times already.

=====
This one deserves it's own, very special section.

"My opponent validated the scientific arguments of cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments by posting links to them. Since my opponent has proven them to be valid, "Only if they are all correct, which he has not shown". My opponent took care of that for me, thereby giving me the win. Thanks!"

Pardon me? How does my posting links to logical (not "scientific") arguments that have been used for the existence of God validate anything? Especially since I gave a brief summary of the problems each one has? And since my opponent has not cared to argue them for himself?

I did not prove any of them to be valid; far from it. If you read the links, you will find that theologians and philosophers have been trying to do that for centuries, and that each of the arguments has fatal or near-fatal flaws.

=====

"Even in a debate I would be careful about consigning the Bible to the fiction section."
Neither in this debate nor in real life do I so; however, I require better logic from you than "The Bible says so, thus it must be true." I wanted you to go deeper than that; I am disappointed that you have only shown circular logic to back up your belief, and hoped that you would do a true analysis of your position.

Still waiting...

"Here are other links to attest to the validity of the Bible:
http://www.creatingfutures.net...
http://teens4evangelism.wordpress.com...
http://www.anunseenworld.com...

All I ask is that the voters take a look at these links; the last in particular should answer any lingering questions about my opponent's reasoning.

My opponent, in order to prove the Bible's validity, refers us to:
-A ministry website which uses the same circular reasoning that my worthy opponent has indulged in, with a similar disdain for evidence: "Why would there need to be more historical evidence?";
-A blog entry, which argues the Bible's truth from lack of evidence to the contrary (a logical fallacy), but at least admits: "...But just because the Bible claims to be written by God isn't enough. I could write a note that says, "-from God" at the end, but that wouldn't mean it was true..."
-And the prizewinning entry in this lineup, An Unseen World. A brief glance at the various entries gives us examples of sensationalism ("The Bell witch"), revised history ("Columbus: Terrorist"), and modern "feel-good" theology ("The Rapture"). The article he links us to is essentially worthless for vindicating the Bible, as it relies on vaguely worded prophecies and their supposed fulfillment in modern history; linking the two with tenuous logic and shaky assumptions.

As such, these links are hardly suitable for the purpose my opponent intended them for.

"Former athiest Lee Strobel went to great lengths to discredit the Bible as fiction only to find that the Bible was indeed valid."
Sources? And why does his opinion validate the Bible any more than mine or yours? Further, if he came to this conclusion logically, mightn't you have been better off posting his arguments for the validity of the Bible here, rather than merely saying he came to that conclusion?

"The Dead Sea Scrolls written by the Essenes corroborate the Bible."
This is a statement, not an argument. You give no source, no evidence, no argument. This is nothing more than a bald assertion that your position must be true.

"Since the Bible exists and was written by inspiration of God, God does exist. As requested, the Bible is now defended."
Since the Bible exists, but God's part in writing it is as yet completely unverified, we cannot conclude whether or not God exists from the evidence presented in this debate.

------------------
CONCLUSION:
Let me summarize for the last time the essential problem with my opponent's arguments.

They all run in this same circle:
1. The Bible is true, therefore God exists.
2. God exists, therefore the Bible is true.

There are variations and complications on this, but we keep returning to the fugue. If my opponent posts anything in his next round that attempts to argue for the existence of God from the words of the Bible, simply apply this as my prepared refutation.

I hold the resolution negated, and urge a Con vote.

-----------
I enjoyed this debate, despite all it's defects; it was certainly educational for me to play the devil's advocate on this issue. I thank my opponent again for his patience and his arguments; I wish him all the best in his future debates.

-Chrysippus
twsurber

Pro

One could argue that circular reasoning applies to many areas, does that make it any less valid? Every book and article, except the Bible, was written by imperfect human beings. Given that, why should any source be trustworthy?

I have provided a number of sources that prove the existence of God, unfortunately they were all dismissed as fallacy. As my opponent and I will likely score 7 a piece, the rest is up to you the voters.

Given that we live in a society of moral and social decay, I am supremely confident that I had lost this debate the moment I accepted it. I am also supremely confident that these same supposed intellectuals of modern academia will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire, unless they accept Jesus as their Lord and savior. See John 3: 18, the substance of which states if you are a believer, you are going to heaven, if you are not a believer, you are condemned.

God wishes that no one would be condemned, however; He allowed us our own free will to choose. People may stay in the condemned status, or choose to get saved. It is my hope that the readers of this debate will choose to get saved, see Romans 10: 9. That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in thy heart, thou shalt be saved.

Friends, I encourage you all to get your fire insurance. Thanks!
Debate Round No. 4
63 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lelanatty 7 years ago
lelanatty
C: Con
SP/G: Tied
CA: Con
Source: Con

Con proves that the only source cited by Pro is invalid, therefore making all of Pro's arguments unwarranted. Even so, Con provides ample refutation to all of Pro's arguments and therefore successfully defends his position.
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
10 votes and NO RFD's? Let us know why you voted, and for whom, please.

It looks like people are just voting based on what they personally believe; rather than for how the debate itself played out. Out of common courtesy, if people could take a second to record the reasons why they voted the way they did, I would appreciate it.
Posted by twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
I sincerely hope all of you left wingers come to accept the REAL truth BEFORE it's too late. Surbs
Posted by lelanatty 7 years ago
lelanatty
I thank both Debaters for this debate, it has been very interesting and fascinating to see how it played out. I must now attend to my own debate.
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
"Your claim remains, not believed, but uncriticized."
The original statement was not that harsh; but the box to submit arguments keeps cutting my round off with two hundred characters left. I had to trim most of this section out to make it fit at all.

I apologize for the way it sounds; I didn't have enough characters to write it the way I wanted...
Posted by lelanatty 7 years ago
lelanatty
GeoLaureate8 I will await your decision.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Like I said, I don't entirely disagree with your position. I don't think there's enough of a disagreement to debate about. Also, I will admit, the slight difference between our position, I haven't really given enough thought to actually debate it. Let me reevaluate my position, and I may debate you.
Posted by lelanatty 7 years ago
lelanatty
That was for GeoLaureate8.
Posted by lelanatty 7 years ago
lelanatty
How about we just take this to a real debate instead of comment section hogging? Then we will have ample opportunity to prove our positions/arguments.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
"Solipsism is an ad hominem because you are making an argument about me myself, the arguer, instead of the actual argument that I am making, whether or not it is an insult. The thought that I can't prove anything is real except myself had never crossed my mind because I know that I can't prove that anything at all is real, not even myself. What are you trying to prove by this?
Are you just trying to label me as something so that you can better understand my position or what?"

You are not making any arguments. You are just making bare assertions such as "there are no absolutes" and "you can't prove anything exists." You make no supporting argument to back it up, yet you complain when I don't have an argument against your assertions.

"I still do not understand how saying that I believe in solipsism is relevant to your previous argument that there are standards by which the universe is objective."

My point is that, even if this is a virtual reality, there exists objective standards, *whether they're illusory or not.*

"Please explain this. I have also asked you to define those standards and you have not. I will not continue with this discussion if you have no other arguments to support your position or refute mine."

Like I said, you've put forth no arguments defending your position. You just keep making the same affirmations.

"by the way, try not to use a conjunction as a pronoun. It's your, not "You're."

It's obviously a typo since I used "Your" in the proper context in the preceding sentence. Besides, it's irrelevant.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
ChrysippustwsurberTied
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 
Vote Placed by Dmorgen 7 years ago
Dmorgen
ChrysippustwsurberTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by The_Anarchist_Opposition 7 years ago
The_Anarchist_Opposition
ChrysippustwsurberTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Eros 7 years ago
Eros
ChrysippustwsurberTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by StephenAlsop 7 years ago
StephenAlsop
ChrysippustwsurberTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
ChrysippustwsurberTied
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 
Vote Placed by Floid 7 years ago
Floid
ChrysippustwsurberTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by lelanatty 7 years ago
lelanatty
ChrysippustwsurberTied
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 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
ChrysippustwsurberTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Gilgameshdg 7 years ago
Gilgameshdg
ChrysippustwsurberTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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