RE: God's Existance
Debate Rounds (5)
I note that your debate on this topic is essentially over, as your current opponent is a fool who is the only one unaware that he is agreeing with. This was so annoying to me that I signed up an account on Debate.org. Would you be interested in resetting your debate with me as the Con? I have never used this forum before, but I certainly cant be worse than your previous opponent.
I appreciate your challenge. The last debate I attempted was in fact a mere waste of time to say the least. My opponent did not oppose me at any time. For that I was disappointed. I too created an account on this website because I believed I could preform a better debate.
I do however, accept your challenge. Please present your argument and I will gladly destroy it.
1.) A limited deity, such as Thor or Apollo? These are both beings that are immortal, capable of more than human feats, and are shown as dwelling in a place other than the mortal realm. Typically these are also shown as having direct contact with humans, which would make itself an excellent proof. Autographs would be nice, video preferred. Id give bonus points for chutzpah if you are willing to show an entire pantheon exists.
2.) An unlimited or nearly unlimited deity, such as YHWH? I wont bore everyone with a truly OMNI- whatever deity. Those can be shown to be logically paradoxical, so I'll just specify that this God is not an anthropomorphic god, but one that created and controls all of nature, and can suspend natural law to perform magic feats. Here, showing a genuine, not of this earth miracle would clearly constitute evidence. Getting this God to actually show up in an unambiguous way would be better.
3.) A prime mover or "perfect" deity, as the Deists believe in? Frankly, I don't how you can provide evidence of a god that simply has no interest in showing up at all, or whose motives are necessarily unfathomable, making the agnostics correct.
In sum, I would like some direct, practical, evidence that any of the beings I describe actually exist. Until then, I simply won't be able to say that these entities are real, let alone tell which of the thousands of descriptions of the divine I have studied, glanced at, or tried to ignore on street corners I would need to look more closely at.
It is your responsibility to provide first why God cannot exist.
After you provide this argument, I will follow up with an organized rebuttal.
I urge my opponent to take a stand as to why there can be no God. If this cannot be proven, I win.
My argument, simply put, is that you have not met you burden of proof. You established in your first debate the position that "God Exists". I looked through the nearest old mythology I could reach, full of a magical creation, the jealousy and war among the host, a actual GOD being killed and then the miraculous resurrection after three days, and my response is "Meh, not buying this story of Ra, Isis, and Set." [http://www.sacred-texts.com...] Then you hastily point out that those stories are just silly, every one knows that! It is this other god that is real, this other book full of absurdities and supernatural claims that is a true story. I'm asking you what is the difference? Balls in your court, Liquidus, as it must be for any positive claim. Show some indication of the Christian god, or you necessarily lose.
Allow me to stun you all.
There is NO and I mean NO alternative to our beginning without the presence of some "God". Evolution ( The alternative to God) suggests ALL life came from a single simple cell, this single cell was composed of Hydrogen and Helium (the primary matter found in stars), this Hydrogen and Helium was NOT present or resulting directly from the big bang theory. Instead, theory suggests that the light beams that erupted from the big bang SOMEHOW (notice the unexplained) began to DEVELOP (develop is as specific as it gets as there is NO explanation) into Hydrogen and Helium bundles, which then began to develop into stars, and then into planets, and water, sand and rocks came from those bundles. Next we have these light beams evolving SOMEHOW (again no explanation) developed into living beings. These living beings existed in a simple state for approximately 3.5 billion years before developing into emotional, rational humans. Of course NONE of this can explain the complexity of our eyes. That's right, evolution cannot explain the origin of our eyes, and how material that was separate from us became apart of us. This entire false PROCESS, if you will give it that, is absurd! How did light beams transform into emotional beings that experience joy and sorrow? How did light beams differentiate between plants, animals, bacteria, and humans? Answer me that. Don't be too burdened, NO PERSON has ever been able to explain this. However, I present to you the ONLY alternative to this. God. God created the world, universe, animals, plants, and humans. If you cannot show me otherwise, I win.
This is only one of 20 arguments for Gods existence I have studied in the topic of Christian Apologetics.
Con, I urge you to answer the question of the origin of life IN DETAIL, vividly explaining the process. If you fail to do this, I win this debate.
Allow me to say that I am so NOT stunned (disappointed, I will grant you).
Part 1. The very first sentence is a typo- " no alternative to our beginning without... God" taken literally is a stronger version of my argument. Or an admission, whichever. The next sentences are much worse. I would suggest that you do some research into the sciences that you are parodying here.
In brief, evolutionary theory is not an alternative to Yahweh. There are billions of followers of the abrahamic faiths, and most of them have no difficulty accepting that their God and evolutionary processes are compatible. Catholic doctrine in particular, states that evolution is "more than a hypothesis", and compatible with the faith. Evolution also does not state that the first cell was made out of hydrogen and helium. Really, helium, Pro? The first noble gas, which famously does not build or even combine with anything is a building block of all life? Absurd! Then you follow with the same misunderstanding of big bang theory. No, it wasn't all light beams at the start. No, the photons didn't develop into atomic elements- photons have no mass and therefore can't form atoms. In fact helium doesn't go on to make stars, it is made from stars, when hydrogen fusion occurs. So are the rest of the elements, from which we came to be. This explanation does exist, but as my space is limited I cant give you proper justice. Then you say that life existed 'in a simple state' for 3billion years until developing into humans. That is another ridiculous smear on evolution - followed by the 'evolution can't explain the eye' trope. Last time I checked there were 34 separate lineages of eyes in biology, every one explained to the the hilt. Google 'evolution of the eye' sometime. Google 'big bang origin' sometime.
But first, you should really google 'relevant argument'and 'alternative argument' some time, because these are not!
Stellar fusion, the Big Bang and evolution are all well verified theories, by which I mean they are robust, tested, directly observed in the real world. They are not alternatives to the existence of any god, particularly YHWH/ Jehovah/ Allah. As I said, there are many people who believe in whatever god and in these theories as well. There are also some people who disbelieve them both. Your entire incoherent paragraph does not address the existence of a god, except as a fallback from a false either or argument.
I note again the delicious irony of the official arguments for god- 'apologetic'. Since you were so interested in
Also, I do not have room to discuss the origins of life in this forum. Fortunately I in fact don't have too, as that is not the topic of this debate- we are on God Existence, right now.
Part 2. As you noted, I haven't given any arguments for the nonexistence of the Christian God, so for grins I will do so now.
Premise 1-1: God is all powerful.
Premise 1-2: God is all knowing.
Ergo: God can accomplish what He desires.
Counter 1: God is not incompetent.
Premise 2-1: God is Good
Premise 2: God desires (from #1) that mortals understand Him by a written work.
Ergo2: Any written work that is of God is consistent.
Counter2: A written work that is inconsistent is not of God.
The Torah, or God should get the facts straight.
First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3) Second Account (Genesis 2:4-25)
(Humans were created after the other animals.)
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.
(Humans were created before the other animals.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
The Testament, or God should be able to keep a schedule.
16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
The Koran, or God should've gotten it right the first time.
None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" (2:106).
When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not," (16:101).
Pro, I hope you have as much fun with that as I have. A god may exist, but the books of monotheism cannot describe he/she/it accurately. Therefore any god that does exist is not *your* god.
Some final links for your research:
1. Your telling me that I am wrong when I have studied evolutionary science and bio molecular process for 4 years? And you evidence is some knock-off websites and you own opinion!? Bah!
2. I should just mention, my debate was over when it was over, YOU challenged me.
3. You accuse my argument of not meeting the burden of proof! On what grounds I ask!? Again, poor poor opinionated response.
4. If what you are implying is true, you believe in Theistic Evolution and therefore, prove to agree with my argument. And in that case, thank you Danger93 the second.
5. How can you be stunned when you don't understand my arguments!? (I promise to dumb them down for you from here on out).
6. Catholics are fools! They don't even know what they are talking about! They don't even believe in the Bible! What kind of resource are they!?
7. I should point out, Hydrogen is a very complex molecule, I suggest you research it and then come back (If you know it you will see your comments about it don't make any sense)
8. I never said Helium became the first cells! Evolutionists did :)
9. When you made the comment about the light beams I showed my professor we all had a big laugh, so thanks!
10. You also suggest we came from stars (which you mention the sentence before is made of Helium!)
11. This next one really gets me, and I quote "This explanation does exist, but as my space is limited I cant give you proper justice" Bahahahahahaha!!!!! How convenient! lol
12. You never did explain to me the part about the eyes, you just said to "Google" it, how professional might I add. I encourage ALL readers of this debate to "Google" this so you too can see the evidence that does not exist. Maybe you can show me some quotes from wikipedia next!
13. Then you try to be funny.....I guess? By saying to Google (there's that term again) relevant and alternative arguments? If that was a joke, I recommend "googling" what makes a good joke.
14. Next you tell me that Stellar fusion is a verified theory, hmmm.....I missed this one on the news......
15. Then you try to throw out some "god names" Yahweh and Jehovah and Allah.
16. Then you stupidly admit that its a "fortunate thing you don't have to prove the origin of life". I agree, because you couldn't.
17. You bring premises that are not true.
18. You bring some "Animals in Genesis" contextual error. If you look up the definition of "formed" in the Hebrew context, you will see it can also mean "call or called".
19. You are misunderstood. Man and Woman were created separately that verse is a clarification.
20. I am Christian, not Islamic, this means I reject the Koran, I also should point out that even Islamics reject the new testament. If you knew what you were talking about, you could see this.
21. I had a great time shining light on your misunderstandings, fallacies, and silly truths.
22. I ALSO JUST LOVE HOW YOU ADMIT THAT THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF GOD BUT I SHOULD REMIND YOU THAT AS CON IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO DENY, NOT CONSIDER, THIS TRUTH.
23. Now lets take a good look at your resources: Pandasthumb (that sounds reliable), talkorigins, evilbible (hmm creepy), skeptics anonymous lol, and answeringislam (I'm not Islamic?).
I hope these fallacies entertain you as much as they did me and my class! My professor urged me to point out to you that the word "existence" in your title for this debate, is spelled wrong. It's "existence" not "existance".
Well Con, you have disappointed me greatly. I was hoping for an argument but I have been let down. I only accept debates from educated, qualified, individuals which you have proven not to be. I usually end the debate by this point, but because you are SO entertaining and my class is enthused, I will continue. So I say again,
Con please take a stand and stop pretending to be smart!
--I hope you have as fun as I did although I have a feeling you wont. And remember, oppose my topic this time, don't agree with me!
Pro, I am also disappointed in this debate- firstly that it is over so soon. I honestly thought five rounds would be a long time for this subject. And second I was hoping to talk to an adult, not a child whose only argument is a tossed salad of irrelevant put downs of sciences far beyond his grasp, followed by gratuitous insults and mockery as a substitute for discussion in a search for truth.
In part 1, I stated that your discussion of Cosmology and Evolution is in fact not relevant to the question of the existence of a divine being (and now that you mention it, I do note and apologize for my typo in the title). That was my point about monotheists who regard modern science as true. That paragraph is irrelevant for the existence of a divine being- or against it either. Note to the readers of this debate: In the interest of completeness, I have made responses to Pros arguments, correcting his numerous errors as I could. It was a "Gish Gallop" , and can be safely skipped. The subject of Gods Existence is dealt with in Part 2.
Part 1: Science, God, and WTF.
1.) Yep, you are wrong, and I might add, SO wrong that I hesitate to imagine what your '4 year' study on these subjects consisted of. There is just no way you have a grasp of biology that can produce such quotes as you did after more than four MONTHS of actual class and laboratory work. What you called 'evidence' is actually a group of web resources to look up what the actual science is about.
2.) I actually requested that you *reset your debate* so that we could have a do over of your previous version, but I was expecting better than the paragraph you delivered, which was two badly mangled versions of cosmology and evolution, chopped and blended together in a manner that I described already as both incoherent and irrelevant to the existence of the Christian God.
3.) Your argument doesn't meet the burden of proof because you provided no proof, evidence, or even a relevant argument. In this case you would need to provide some sort of source material of this god. The best proof would be for you to convince God Himself to SHOW UP- to manifest on this Earth. That would be an undeniable proof that he is real.
4.) I don't believe in Theistic Evolution. I pointed out that many people do, as a demonstration that Theism and Evolution do NOT contradict. That means that your attack on evolution, even in the hypothetical case of it succeeding, would not in any way 'prove' that a god exists.
5.) I said I was NOT stunned. Disappointed, not stunned. When I first eyeballed your work, I noted that it is an obvious Gish Gallop. ( I would hope that you would at least organize your arguments. 'Dumbing them down' is not the problem, sadly.)
6.) a.)The Catholics are not 'fools', and it is a miserable, needlessly insulting piece of bigotry to say that they are. From my (Cons) point of view, they are not even any more wrong than you. Also Catholics do believe in the Bible. So do the Lutherans, the Greek Orthodox and even the Westboro Baptist Church. Now these sects have many different versions of the Bible, but they all are Christian- all believe in Original Sin via the fall of Adam, and a 'get out of hell free card' via belief in the divine hookup of Jesus of Nazareth. b.) Again my point was and is that MANY churches and MOST Christians have no conflict with their faith and science, thereby invalidating any argument you were attempting to make. c.) Any Catholics reading this- Pro called you all fools! He said you don't believe in the Bible! Vote for Con. At least Con respects your opinions!
7.) Are you kidding me?! Hydrogen is a single proton, orbited by one electron. It not a 'complex molecule' it is -literally- the SIMPLEST of ATOMS. You seriously claimed to have four years of study in evolution and "bio molecular process" and the first part of basic science you manage to get backwards! I in fact just pulled out an old biology book and guess what? The chapter starts with the correct description of atom and molecules, next to pictures of hydrogen and helium atoms.
8.) You explicitly state that Evolution claims cells are "composed of Hydrogen and Helium" which no Evolutionist would or could say helium ever made up a part of cells. I challenge you to find a genuine science quote on that. You did not ever take any real biology course, it is clear that you are inflating your credentials.
9.) This sentence seems to have no point. You say you showed my comments to your 'professor' (actually FAILING to present the fallacy of Argument from Authority), and that you all had a big laugh (which FAILS the fallacy Argument from Incredulity). If you are not going to actually present an objection to my comments, why bother mentioning them? Also I'd like to talk to this professor of yours, to discuss your debate skills in a candid way. I cannot credit the fact that you actually failed to finish presenting fallacious arguments by not closing your point! Can you arrange for your professor to contact me? I appreciate that, thanks.
10.) All elements higher than hydrogen are forged in stellar furnaces, yes.
11.) Yes, that one 'got me too' but not in a good way. Again, you are using a 'gallop' style of argument that will need paragraphs or even entire chapters to address. I do NOT have space in this forum for that, in fact I've chopped large sections out to make this much fit.
12.) Again, not enough space for eyeballs. And 'to google' has been a verb in English for several years now.
13.) Don't guess, find out, Pro. I used the term 'google' as a verb correctly.
14.) Stellar fusion is verified. Common knowledge even- its E=MC^2.
15.) You missed the point of those names, which is the "are not alternatives to the existence of any god" part.
16.) I don't have space in this debate for a dissertation on biogenesis, I've had to cut my work twice already. I'm down to 136 characters!
Part 2: My argument against the Accuracy of Sacred Texts.
17.) My premises (all -benevolent, -knowing and -powerful) are your gods directly ascribed characteristics. You need to show any objections, or are you saying your God is not true?
18.) The word doesn't mean 'call' in the context of my quote from your book- unless you are saying god 'called' an eland from the 'dust of the ground', or summoned a sparrow from its burrow. 'Formed' is the only definition that makes sense here.
19.) I am misunderstood, but I do not misunderstand. These are clearly separate stories of creation with a different chronology, and a competent god wouldn't 'clarify' anyway- he'd get it right to start with.
20.) The Jew, Christian and Islamist all follow the same god of Adam, Moses and David, not disagreeing until events during the reign of Julius Caesar. I showed all of these books are simply wrong, disproving all versions the same fictional god. Also the absence of a critique on the Christian section of my argument is telling.
22.) I advanced a hypothesis of a god, to demonstrate again that it cannot be *your god. Your god is not still shown to exist.
23.) Heh, you should indeed take a good look at those sites- the third one is Skeptic Annotated Bible for example, not Skeptic Anonymous. They all offer valuable education opportunities if you get past the names.
So what classes are you taking, anyway? I ask purely for information...
Thank You for your time in this debate. It was fun, and a real learning experience for me.
It is the final argument and now it is time for me to confess.
I never intended on arguing this topic with you.
I saw in my notifications section your challenge for me to debate "Gods Existance". I noticed the typo and thought to myself, "great, another illiterate rebel wanting to shove some sketchy 'evolution theory' down my throat." I was bored, and decided to see what you were made of before I actually decided to debate you. If you noticed, I never truly tried to throw any hard evidence at you. Instead, I challenged your wits and your Ad Hominem responses. I learned that you were more serious than I expected and that I would be willing to argue this point with you. I did not have the time needed to properly argue this topic with you beings as I am in this same debate with another challenger. I apologize for wasting your time, but I only accept challenges from legitimate opponents, usually of which I have researched (your profile was new so I could not). If you do not believe me, and expect I'm making a false claim, check my profile to see some of my debates.
I could spend this time making more harsh comments to you, but I have a better idea.
I will give you a small example of what exactly a "true" argument from my side would have looked like.
Allow me to show you my weakest argument from the point of The Christian God:
"You have likely heard that it is impossible to prove that God exists. You have heard wrong. Not only can the existence of God be proven, denying the proof undermines rational thought. It is true that God does not need anyone, let alone this argument, to prove His existence. The Bible teaches that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for denying Him. No one needs proof that God exists, I simply suggest the logical proof of God's existence in addition to what you already know (and may be suppressing).
1. Laws of logic exist.
2. Laws of mathematics exist.
3. Laws of science exist.
4. Absolute moral laws exist.
5. Laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality are immaterial.
6. Laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality are universal.
7. Laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality are unchanging.
8. You must acknowledge that immaterial, universal, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws are necessary for rational thinking to be possible. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature. The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God's existence and those who suppress the truth of God's existence. The options of 'seeking' God, or not believing in God are unavailable. The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him. Romans 1 vs. 18 - 21 says:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. The God of Christianity is the necessary starting point to make sense of universal, abstract, invariant laws by the impossibility of the contrary. These laws are necessary to prove ANYTHING. Therefore...
9. The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything. Note that the proof does not say that professed unbelievers do not prove things. The argument is that you must borrow from the Christian worldview, and a God who makes universal, immaterial, unchanging laws possible in order to prove anything.
This type of logical proof deals with ‘transcendentals' or ‘necessary starting points,' and the proof is called a ‘transcendental proof.' Any contrary view to the God of Christianity being the necessary starting point for rationality is reduced to absurdity. You have to assume God in order to argue against Him."
This would be a small and very weak example of one of my arguments. If you notice, to reject any of the first 7 points, is to contradict yourself. You must assume one of them to deny another.
So as I told you from the beginning, the FACT of God is to be assumed, that is why the burden of proof was always on you. Remember, the definition of an atheist is an "Anti-Theist" Anti means "against".
You must assume God to deny Him.
Well, it has been fun! I enjoyed testing your limits, and as I have stated earlier, I would be willing to debate you on a professional level as you seem to be, gutsy.
Thank you to all who have kept up with this debate, and a special thanks to my opponent, bbowhan.
I urge all that are voting to hold those arguments I made at face value, and if you disagree with them, to look them up as I assure you, I am not mistaken.
Again, thanks! God bless you all!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 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:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's case was mostly personal attack. He even admitted that he was trolling, never even intended to treat this debate seriously, was just testing Con's limits. I have blocked Pro, and recommend that others do so too.
Vote Placed by OMGJustinBieber 5 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: Pro's case was utterly painful to read. Most of it was irrelevant to the case, and the bits that were relevant in no way fulfilled BOP.
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.