The Instigator
truthiskey
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Topher1989
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: God Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
truthiskey
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/1/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 773 times Debate No: 80345
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

truthiskey

Con

Rules:
- Pro States his case as acceptance
- Pro must leave his Round 5 empty or show in some way that it is invalid. This is to balance the round count too four and four.
- Burden of Proof lies on Pro. Pro must show that god exists. If pro cannot do so, con wins.
- NO CONTINUING SPEECHES IN THE COMMENTS. THE LIMITS ARE THERE FOR A REASON.
For the Purposes of this debate, God is defined as an omnipresent, benevolent, omnipotent, and all-knowing being.
You can run a plan of a single religion. (AKA: I'm going to prove Christianity.)
Topher1989

Pro

I accept this challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
truthiskey

Con

I thank pro for accepting the challenge and look forward to an exciting debate. However....

Pro was supposed to post his argument in round 1. Now that he hasn't presented his case, this puts me in an awkward position (Pro had the BOP and all Con was supposed to do was refute). I encourage everyone on this website to read the rules before accepting a debate (as pro has not followed the rules, please award the point for conduct to me).

Still, I have 1 contention to bring up, even though, to be clear, the burden of proof is on pro as stated in the premise of this debate.

Contention 1: The problem of evil.

This contention basically is pointing out that for a god to be both omniscient and all-loving, he has to help everyone. If not, how is he all-benevolent. Every day, bad things happen to people. Children starve to death. If god is omniscient then he can change all that. And if he is all-benevolent, then he would. So, it is up to the theist to show how god is both benevolent and omniscient while there is still suffering in the world.

I apologize for the short response, for as the BOP is on Pro, I thought that I would get to refute the arguments that he was SUPPOSED TO POST IN ROUND 1.

Thank you all for reading and I strongly urge a con vote.
Topher1989

Pro

Thank you truthiskey for this debate.

As I"m sure all voters are aware, to award a conduct point is to determine which debater, on balance, was more composed, and used fewer or no personal attacks against their opponent. Improper conduct includes personal insults, profanities, and bad sportsmanlike behavior. I can promise voters that I was not trying to be unsportsmanlike and break con"s rules intentionally. I misunderstood his rules. And I apologize, truthiskey, for my folly. And I can promise you that I read your first round.

Before presenting my argument, I"d like to open up con"s definition of God. The God I"d like to imagine is: the creator of all things and an omnipresent, benevolent, omnipotent, and all-knowing being. I doubt con will mind me adding in that God is also the creator of all things.

REBUTTAL to contention 1: The problem of evil.

If God is all-knowing and all-loving, according to con"s argument, it would appear that God is not helping those who suffer to end their suffering. As a result, God is either impotent or evil. I recently watched a talk by Sam Harris who made the same argument. I claim that God is neither evil nor impotent.

Why God is neither evil nor impotent:

I argue for deism. God created the world and now no longer participates in it for good reason.
God created this universe to teach organisms important truths. Only true happiness can be appreciated in light of suffering. You have to know the bad to know the good. The ends, to allow for organisms to experience true happiness, justifies the means.

Life will inevitable produce suffering as a result of God"s intentional design. The origin of suffering is attachment to a state of being, object, or whatever. The way to end suffering is through the eightfold path, essentially by detachment. Right speech, meditation, and other practices would help you detach and eliminate suffering from your life. If the eightfold path is practiced and mastered, you can reach a state of enlighten and end all suffering. And you will enter nirvana at the end of this life as a result of your practice and mastery.

Proof that God exists:

God most certainly exists in the minds of many people. God exists in the minds of at least 92% off all people who live in America.

For some reason I wasn't able to put in the table/poll. Here is the source:
http://www.gallup.com...

However interesting the poll may be, I don"t believe I"m addressing my opponents question and concern.
Con wants to know if God exists in reality. Many people believe that God exists as I"ve shown. And they"ve experienced spiritual phenomena as a result of their pursuit to know God. It is objective that these people are experiencing mental phenomena that have yet to be explained. If enough people relay their subjective experiences of this mental phenomena in congruence with a common source, this may be evidence that supports the claim that God exists.
Debate Round No. 2
truthiskey

Con

Before presenting my argument, I"d like to open up con"s definition of God. The God I"d like to imagine is: the creator of all things and an omnipresent, benevolent, omnipotent, and all-knowing being. I doubt con will mind me adding in that God is also the creator of all things."

OK.

"Why God is neither evil nor impotent:"

This is a misrepresentation of my point. I never said that God was evil. I merely stated that he allows suffering which contradicts with his benevolent nature.

"I argue for deism. God created the world and now no longer participates in it for good reason."

Care to share? What reason could possibly stop a benevolent God from stopping suffering. You are making an argument from ignorance by saying that there is a reason, and we don't know, but there still is a reason. Pro's claim is far too vague to be taken into account.

"God created this universe to teach organisms important truths. Only true happiness can be appreciated in light of suffering. You have to know the bad to know the good. The ends, to allow for organisms to experience true happiness, justifies the means."

What is "true happiness"? How is it different than normal happiness? Why must one suffer to attain "true happiness"? This concept is key to his argument, yet it is not clear what it is. His argument lacks substance if he cannot answer these questions. Also, since god is omnipotent, why can't he just allow everyone to experience true happiness (suffering-free)? Why do you "have to know the bad to know the good"? If the con can't answer these questions, then his argument fails.

"Life will inevitable produce suffering as a result of God"s intentional design."

Why would a benevolent god make a design like that?

"The origin of suffering is attachment to a state of being, object, or whatever."

What does this even mean? Is it saying that suffering comes from creations? If so, why did a benevolent god make them this way?

"The way to end suffering is through the eightfold path, essentially by detachment. Right speech, meditation, and other practices would help you detach and eliminate suffering from your life. If the eightfold path is practiced and mastered, you can reach a state of enlighten and end all suffering. And you will enter nirvana at the end of this life as a result of your practice and mastery."

Irrelevant to the debate and makes no claims on god.

"Proof that God exists:

God most certainly exists in the minds of many people. God exists in the minds of at least 92% off all people who live in America.

For some reason I wasn't able to put in the table/poll. Here is the source:
http://www.gallup.com...;

Wrong. How is believing in something proof of its existence?.

"However interesting the poll may be, I don"t believe I"m addressing my opponents question and concern.
Con wants to know if God exists in reality."

I agree, it doesn't.

"Many people believe that God exists as I"ve shown."

So... I've already shown why the "believe-so-exist" argument is bogus.

"And they"ve experienced spiritual phenomena as a result of their pursuit to know God.It is objective that these people are experiencing mental phenomena that have yet to be explained. If enough people relay their subjective experiences of this mental phenomena in congruence with a common source, this may be evidence that supports the claim that God exists."

Citation needed. The Gallup poll doesn't make any claims on spiritual encounters (it only talks about personal belief which is separate from spiritual encounters as it is possible for one to believe in god and never have "encountered him/her). Also, why is God the most reasonable explanation for "spiritual encounters"? It could be a hoax or one's own subconscious. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that one's mind is being tampered with. Why couldn't it be ghosts or aliens then? Pro needs to show that there is in fact a spiritual connection, AND that god is the most reasonable explanation for his argument to make sense.
Topher1989

Pro

Thanks for the return fire. I believe I'm on the defense now. Playing devil's advocate for God's existence is like trying to skydive into a kitchen sink through the roof.

Why God Would Either be Evil or Impotent:

You never said God was evil or impotent. I said that. If you follow your logic through, an all-powerful God would be evil if he didn't help children who are suffering and dying as a result of starvation and other ailments. In other words, if he has the capacity, he is responsible for the suffering of these children. If he doesn't act responsibly with his capacities, he is most certainly immoral.
If he can"t help suffering children, he would be impotent.
Of course your argument contradicts his benevolent nature. I thought it an axiom that logic would end at the inference I"ve offered - that God is either evil or impotent.

God created the world and now no longer participates in it for good reason:

I just waved my hand in front of you. You will forget about what I wrote here. And then you repeat: "I will forget what you wrote here." You will go home and rethink your life. "I will go home and rethink my life. " And you don"t want to sell me death sticks. "And I don't want to sell you death sticks."

True happiness:

True happiness is not any different from normal happiness. I merely added true to happiness because it sounded more full and exciting!! Yeaaah!

Why you have to know the bad to know the good:

Just like a deaf man will never know sound without hearing it, you couldn't know any amount of happiness without suffering. If God made everyone happy, you wouldn't know the difference, and you wouldn't be able to appreciate it. If God made everyone happy, in a way, he would be preventing you from experiencing life"s fullness, and you could not experience agency - happiness can only be appreciated in light of suffering.

Life will inevitably produce suffering as a result of God"s intentional design:

A more pressing issue to bring up is: why is there happiness? And why do I want to experience joy and happiness? Because you like it, obviously. And you want to experience it. As stated previously, without suffering, there is no happiness. I think its fair trade. God"s design was to allow for happiness.

The origin of suffering is attachment to a state of being, object, or whatever:

This is the second noble truth taught by Buddhism with my own stink on it. I found an article that explained it nicely.

"The reason that we experience suffering comes ultimately from our mind. According to Buddhism, our main mental problems or root delusions are attachment ... How can attachment bring us suffering? We just have to think of chocolate and there is the temptation of eating more than is good for us. Or as example, my favorite story: the way people used to catch monkeys in South India: One takes a coconut and makes a hole in it, just large enough that a monkey can squeeze its hand in. Next, tie the coconut down, and put a sweet inside. What happens next is pure attachment. The monkey smells the sweet, puts his hand into the coconut, grabs the sweet and ... the hole is too small to let a fist out of the coconut. The last thing a monkey would consider is to let go of the sweet, so it is literally tied down by its own attachment. Often they only let go when they fall asleep or become unconscious because of exhaustion. Ultimately, the Buddha explains that our attachment to life keeps us in cyclic existence or samsara, which does not bring us continuous happiness."

Why did God decide to create beings with the capacity to suffer? I believe I already answered that question. God"s design was to allow for happiness, and without suffering, you would never know happiness.

Proof that God exists:

As stated earlier many people have experienced spiritual phenomena as a result of their pursuit to know God. It is objective that these people are experiencing mental phenomena that have yet to be explained. If enough people relay their subjective experiences of this mental phenomena in congruence with a common source, this may be evidence that supports the claim that God exists. Here is poll for evidence sake. Enough people were to claim experiencing crazy mental phenomena as a result of aliens probing their brains, then that would also be possible evidence to support extraterrestrials. HAHAHA I sound like a crazy person. I can"t prove there is a connection between God and the spiritual seeker. I can only tell you that there are plenty of people who would make the connection, and their claim may have some validity and weight. 33.99% of people who voluntarily surveyed have had a spiritual experience, per the poll linked below.
http://boards.straightdope.com...
Debate Round No. 3
truthiskey

Con

"Thanks for the return fire. I believe I'm on the defense now. Playing devil's advocate for God's existence is like trying to skydive into a kitchen sink through the roof."

LOL

"Why God Would Either be Evil or Impotent:

You never said God was evil or impotent. I said that. If you follow your logic through, an all-powerful God would be evil if he didn't help children who are suffering and dying as a result of starvation and other ailments. In other words, if he has the capacity, he is responsible for the suffering of these children. If he doesn't act responsibly with his capacities, he is most certainly immoral.
If he can"t help suffering children, he would be impotent.
Of course your argument contradicts his benevolent nature. I thought it an axiom that logic would end at the inference I"ve offered - that God is either evil or impotent."

Ok... Doesn't relate to debate.

"God created the world and now no longer participates in it for good reason:

I just waved my hand in front of you. You will forget about what I wrote here. And then you repeat: "I will forget what you wrote here." You will go home and rethink your life. "I will go home and rethink my life. " And you don"t want to sell me death sticks. "And I don't want to sell you death sticks.""

OK, consider that argument forgotten.

"True happiness:

True happiness is not any different from normal happiness. I merely added true to happiness because it sounded more full and exciting!! Yeaaah!"

OK...

"Why you have to know the bad to know the good:

Just like a deaf man will never know sound without hearing it, you couldn't know any amount of happiness without suffering."

This analogy doesn't make any sense. Let's break this down:

Claim:
Desirable (happiness) requires undesirable (suffering).

Analogy:
Desirable (knowing sound) requires desirable (hearing)

I don't know how the deaf man even fits into this. I mean, I guess deaf people will know sound when they hear, but do normal people have to go deaf to "know sound"?

NO.

"If God made everyone happy, you wouldn't know the difference, and you wouldn't be able to appreciate it. If God made everyone happy, in a way, he would be preventing you from experiencing life"s fullness, and you could not experience agency - happiness can only be appreciated in light of suffering."

Um, why can't God just make us appreciate happiness and understand how lucky we are WITHOUT torture. If he is omnipotent, can't he bestow that upon us?

"Life will inevitably produce suffering as a result of God"s intentional design:"

Why would a benevolent god do such a thing?

"A more pressing issue to bring up is: why is there happiness? And why do I want to experience joy and happiness? Because you like it, obviously. And you want to experience it."

Doesn't affect topic.

"As stated previously, without suffering, there is no happiness. I think its fair trade. God"s design was to allow for happiness."

Why can't there be? You haven't even provided a logical argument for this.

"The origin of suffering is attachment to a state of being, object, or whatever:

This is the second noble truth taught by Buddhism with my own stink on it. I found an article that explained it nicely."
"The reason that we experience suffering comes ultimately from our mind. According to Buddhism, our main mental problems or root delusions are attachment ... How can attachment bring us suffering? We just have to think of chocolate and there is the temptation of eating more than is good for us. Or as example, my favorite story: the way people used to catch monkeys in South India: One takes a coconut and makes a hole in it, just large enough that a monkey can squeeze its hand in. Next, tie the coconut down, and put a sweet inside. What happens next is pure attachment. The monkey smells the sweet, puts his hand into the coconut, grabs the sweet and ... the hole is too small to let a fist out of the coconut. The last thing a monkey would consider is to let go of the sweet, so it is literally tied down by its own attachment. Often they only let go when they fall asleep or become unconscious because of exhaustion. Ultimately, the Buddha explains that our attachment to life keeps us in cyclic existence or samsara, which does not bring us continuous happiness."

Why couldn't god make suffering NOT EXIST?

"Why did God decide to create beings with the capacity to suffer? I believe I already answered that question. God"s design was to allow for happiness, and without suffering, you would never know happiness."

I already addressed this claim?

"Proof that God exists:

As stated earlier many people have experienced spiritual phenomena as a result of their pursuit to know God. It is objective that these people are experiencing mental phenomena that have yet to be explained. If enough people relay their subjective experiences of this mental phenomena in congruence with a common source, this may be evidence that supports the claim that God exists. Here is poll for evidence sake. Enough people were to claim experiencing crazy mental phenomena as a result of aliens probing their brains, then that would also be possible evidence to support extraterrestrials. HAHAHA I sound like a crazy person. I can"t prove there is a connection between God and the spiritual seeker. I can only tell you that there are plenty of people who would make the connection, and their claim may have some validity and weight. 33.99% of people who voluntarily surveyed have had a spiritual experience, per the poll linked below.
http://boards.straightdope.com...;

As pro points out himself, he can't show that the evidence most likely points to god, so its pointless ("I can"t prove there is a connection between God and the spiritual seeker.").
Topher1989

Pro

I concede to my opponent. There is no reasonable evidence that God exists. It is a non sequitur to claim that these spiritual experiences/ mental phenomena prove god's existence.. Thanks for the debate. Please vote con. And stop believing in God. It's total bull. And I can't say that word, but you know what I want to say. 😀
Debate Round No. 4
truthiskey

Con

Pro concedes. Vote CON!
Topher1989

Pro

May the force be with you.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by asi14 1 year ago
asi14
One last thing: Speaker Points! Both sides your debating could have been better (Pro: never forfeit; Con: always have some kind of an overview in the last speech), as well as your conduct. In these points your speaks got redacted substantially (that was no joke)
PRO: 26.0
CON: 25.7
Posted by asi14 1 year ago
asi14
I must admit that I am biased, given I am a Christian, but here's my take on it. BOTH SIDES: Chill. It sounds like the Cold War here, and I don't like that. If you're gonna debate God, at least treat His name (yeah, I capitalized it, deal with it)-- as well as the other debater-- with some respect. And yes, I understand this particular debate doesn't mandate evidence, but please have something. PRO: Never concede. Ever. There's always a possible rebuttal to an arg. The only time concession is acceptable is if you are sick. I see in some way you try to prove God through a nonphysical way, and is the approach I would take. Perhaps it would've been good to extend that argument, which would've been somewhat formidable, since the average God-hater which proves through "oh we can't see him SO GOD'S DEAD!" won't say anything when you mention that. Finally, you need an "overview." It's a concise summary of your arguments and reasons to vote for you. This is something especially key for your kind of argument since most people here on DDO (which incidentally, are atheists) would vote con in less than 30 seconds (forfeiture aside). CON: Even if you have the advantage of proving we cannot see God, you should have an overview. There should always be an overview in the final speech, which reminds me. DO NOT RELY ON A FORFEITURE! Always finish off your arguments to ENSURE you have won the debate. FINISH THE JOB. And one more thing, please do not be like one of those rednecks that claim He's dead because we cannot see him. I know you aren't like that, but please, no.

RFD: Forfeiture

*Yes, I capitalized pronouns when referring to God. Again, I am a Christian. Deal with it.
Posted by truthiskey 1 year ago
truthiskey
lol. someone vote, its a concession
Posted by Topher1989 1 year ago
Topher1989
Are we gonna debate?
Posted by Dill777 1 year ago
Dill777
I was going to take this until I realized i'd be pro lol
Posted by truthiskey 1 year ago
truthiskey
yes
Posted by truthiskey 1 year ago
truthiskey
Bob13, anyone can accept, so hop on
Posted by asi14 1 year ago
asi14
wait so can I run the 1AC right on my first speech?
Posted by Mike_10-4 1 year ago
Mike_10-4
I would take this debate, but I'm busy at the moment. I would win this debate or tie.

The one who is going to take this debate should review the following debate proving the existence of God:
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Bob13 1 year ago
Bob13
I would love to accept this debate. I accept the burden of proof.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
truthiskeyTopher1989Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro concedes the debate, thus I must give arguments to con.