The Instigator
tvellalott
Pro (for)
Winning
2 Points
The Contender
Buddamoose
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

RESOLVED: It is more logical to believe that no 'God' exists

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 2 votes the winner is...
tvellalott
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,175 times Debate No: 21114
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

tvellalott

Pro

Rules:
This will be a three round debate, beginning in round 2.

Rounds will be restricted to the following:
ROUND 1: Strictly for definitions, rules and acceptance. THERE WILL BE NO ARGUMENTS MADE IN ROUND 1
ROUND 2: Pro (me) will provide opening arguments. Con will provide their own arguments/counter arguments and rebuttals.
ROUND 3: Pro and Con may introduce new arguments. Pro and Con will continue with counter arguments and rebuttals.
ROUND 4: Strictly no new arguments. Pro and Con may make their final rebuttals and conclude their arguments.

I accept the burden of proof, though it is up to each of us to reasonably prove our assertions, at the discretion of the voter.

Definitions:

The word 'logical' obviously pertains to the word 'logic' which for the point is this debate will be defined as[sourced from: http://dictionary.reference.com...]:
1) "The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference."
3)
"The system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study."
4) "Reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions."



The word 'God' is defined as "the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe" and "one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs."

This is the God of Monotheistic Abrahamic Religions, though not restricted to it. I'm speaking specifically of an omni-max and personal God, such as Yahweh or Allah, though this debate is not strictly restricted to said Gods.

If there is any confusion about exactly what I'm talking about (I'm trying to avoid semantics and vague philosophical arguments and it's quite late), accept this debate, but let us discuss the specifics in the comment section before you post your acceptance.

A pre-emptive good luck to my opponent. Let's have a fun debate.
Buddamoose

Con

I accept the challenge and the parameters and definitions applied thereim. Good luck and I look forward to reading your assertions.
Debate Round No. 1
tvellalott

Pro

OPENING

It will be my burden of proof throughout this debate to provide arguments supporting the assertion that it is more logical to believe that no "God" exists. Let me remind my opponent and the voters that I have defined "God" specifically as a Personal God; one who not only created the Universe and exhibits the omni-max traits (that is omniscient, omnipotence and omni-benevolence) but who takes a personal interest in the happenings of humanity and answers prayers.

I would also like to add that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of God, since by all definitions he exists outside the laws of nature. It is NOT my burden of proof to prove that God doesn't exist, only to show it is more logical to believe that no God exists.

Thank you and good luck to my opponent.

ARGUMENTS

PRAYER
I assert that all prayers that are answered (for example, I pray to you Jesus, for my sick son to get better) are simply improbable events. People miraculously recover from illness regardless of which God, if any, is being prayed to on their behalf. This study [1] shows that not only did prayer NOT help people recover from illness, but that people who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications.
On the other hand, if you pray for something that is physically impossible (for example, I pray to you Allah to regrow my lost hand) it will never be answered. Ever.
If you consider this logically, it becomes clear that prayers are not answered and that any prayers which appear to have been answered are simply the product of coincidence.

SCRIPTURE
I assert that there is no scripture in existence that contains knowledge that is radically outside the knowledge of the men who lived at the time of its writing.
There are many websites which chronicle the fatal flaws within the most popular religious texts and it would be intellectually lazy for me to simply list them and flood my opponent with dozens of flaws to explain, so instead I challenge my opponent to show any piece of scripture which contains knowledge that would be impossible for the writers to have known.
I assert that all supposedly divinely-inspired scripture was simply written by men who, for better or worse, wished to exert their will on the people around them. To give my opponent something to respond to, I'll simply give some examples:
Slavery and misogyny in the Bible
War and misogyny in the Quran
Misogyny is a common theme in both books; logical deduction would indicate this is because these scriptures were written by men rather than because an omni-max, personal God favours men over women.
Slavery is condoned in the Bible; logical deduction would indicate this is because the people who wrote those sections of the Bible wanted slaves rather than because an omni-max, personal God condones slavery.
War is a strong theme in the Quran; logical deduction would indicate this is because the people who wrote the Quran were at war, rather than because an omni-max, personal God wanted a war.

EXISTANCE
I assert that the origin of the Universe occurred naturally and that no magical explanation is needed.
I assert that the origin of life on Earth occurred naturally and that no magical explanation is needed.

Science has come a long way in the past few hundred years.
Here are some questions. The explanation was once unknown by mankind and various mythologies was used to answer them [edit: apologies for the bulletpoint formatting, DDO just does it that way >_<]




        • Why does it rain?







        • Why does the sun rise and set?







        • Why do people get sick?







        • Why do some crops succeed and some crops fail?







        • What causes the ocean's waves?







        • Why are some people beautiful and some people ugly?





Each of these questions was once answered with one God or another. We now have a variety of sciences to explain these things: meteorology, cosmology, medicine, advanced agriculture, tidal science and genetics (though some people are just unfortunate).

We have a variety of strong cosmological models for the origin of the Universe.
We have schools of science offering natural origins for life on Earth.

If one takes the time to look at the past and rationally look into the future, we can deduce that as these schools of science advance, they will gather stronger and stronger evidence in support of these theories and eventually these questions will be answered.

CONCLUSION

If God doesn't answer prayers, scripture isn't divinely inspired and theoretically we can naturally explain all of existence then what can we conclude?
God is imaginary and therefore belief in the existence of such beings is illogical.

I didn't want to bog down the debate with too much information too early, as it leaves us quarrelling about these arguments for the rest of the rounds, so I've kept it simple. If my opponent wants further evidence, clarification and/or explanation regarding these arguments, I'll be happy to provide them in the next round.
I will also provide my final two arguments.

Over to you.

SOURCES

[1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
Buddamoose

Con

Buddamoose forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
tvellalott

Pro

tvellalott forfeited this round.
Buddamoose

Con

Buddamoose forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
tvellalott

Pro

I win by forfeit.
Buddamoose

Con

That he does
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by tvellalott 5 years ago
tvellalott
Okie dokie.
Posted by Buddamoose 5 years ago
Buddamoose
I apologize buddy, but it appears ive overstepped my
boundaries in how many debates I've taken at one time. Ive taken on tok many. I really would love to debate this, even though I myself am in agreeance with your side I always like taking sides in a debate that I dont agree with as I find it more challenging. I apologize and hope youll accept my offer to restart this at a later date(maybe a week from now.)
Posted by Buddamoose 5 years ago
Buddamoose
Sounds good, I look forward to reading it :)
Posted by tvellalott 5 years ago
tvellalott
Opening arguments will be up in about 9 hours, when I get home.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
tvellalottBuddamooseTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
tvellalottBuddamooseTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF