The Instigator
Deathbeforedishonour
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
tylersch96
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

Resolved: God doesn't exist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 6 votes the winner is...
Deathbeforedishonour
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/12/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,931 times Debate No: 25556
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (6)

 

Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

Hello, here is the challenge that we agreed to. As the last debate the first round is only for acceptance.

God will be defined as follows: The all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing creator and ruler of the univers as said in the Bible.


~~Rules~~

1. No semantics

2. 8,000 charcters

3. 3 days to post arguments.
tylersch96

Con

To my understanding I will be debating God does exist. If this is wrong then I will not debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

Greetings, I thank my opponent and the voters for taking the time to participate and follow this debate. I hope it will be very productive . So on that note, lets begin.

I will be starting out with four contentions and might add more if the moment calls for I just ask that my opponent refrain from posting new arguments in the final round because that would be just plain unfair.

Contention 1: Lack of Extraordinary Evidence

I will begin with a fairly well-known quote by Carl Sagan:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" [1].

With that said, I will now get to the point. There is no real nor extraordinary evidence for the existence of God. If there be any that I am not aware of then my opponent has the burden to present it. My opponent has the Burden of proof because it is always left to those claiming something exists to prove that the thing to which they referring to (in this case God) exists. For example: If I were to come up to my opponent and say to him that had seen a Unicorn and that they do exist, my opponent would have no reason to believe me unless I either show the Unicorn or the evidence that says the Unicorn exists. It would not be my opponent who had to prove that the unicorn didn't exist, it would be all up to me to prove that it does exist. The same that would apply to there, also applies to here.


Contention 2: The Impossibility of an Afterlife

My next contention really just speaks for itself. I will prove the impossibly of an afterlife. For this I will do a syllogism:

P1: Studies have shown that there exists a strong connection between mental events and brain events that neither can exist without the other.

P2: In a afterlife, there would occur mental events without brain events.

C: Therefore, An afterlife is impossible.

Now, I know what your thinking, if there is a soul then it doesn't require a brain to function. However, this is proven false by my first premise. There are certain injuries to the brain that if happened a person would have no mental state (they would be brain dead). While others destroy various mental capabilities. Which capability is destroyed is determined by which part of the brain was effected. So it is clear that we do not have a soul to carry out mental capabilities further then the brain we have now [2].

Contention 3: Omnipotence is Impossible

For my third contention I contend that omnipotence (or the state of being all-powerful) is in fact logically impossible. I will prove this by using a very old and well known method for do this. It is known as the Paradox of the Stone , and it goes like this:

If God is all-powerful, then he could create a stone that is so heavy that he could not lift it. However, if he does then he proves that he is not all-powerful.

Since omnipotence is a key aspect of God, and since omnipotence is a logical impossibly. Then God is impossible.

Contention 4: Argument from Evil

I will begin this with a syllogism:

P1: If God exists, then there would be no suffering in the world.

P2: Suffering exists

C: Therefore, God does not.

The god of the Bible is supposed to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and also all-loving. However, an all-loving god would do something to prevent suffering. But we see suffering everyday from the holocaust, to 9/11, to the AIDs epidemic in Haiti, And the fact that he is both all-powerful and all-knowing leaves him without an excuse. Therefore, from what the evidence points to, God does not exist.


I will now await my opponent's response.


Thank You.

Sources

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org......
[2]http://www.infidels.org......
tylersch96

Con

Well I would like to let the public know I am a Jehovahs Witness and I will be quoting the Bible form the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

Contention 1: The Natural World.
"About 93 million miles [150 million km] from the sun, this orbit lies within a limited zone that is habitable because life neither freezes nor fries. Moreover, earth"s path is almost circular, keeping us roughly the same distance from the sun year-round.The sun, meanwhile, is the perfect "powerhouse." It is stable, it is the ideal size, and it emits just the right amount of energy.
If you had to choose a "next-door neighbor" for the earth, you could not improve on the moon. Its diameter measures just over a quarter of that of the earth. Thus, when compared with other moons in our solar system, our moon is unusually large in relation to its host planet. Mere coincidence? It seems unlikely.
For one thing, the moon is the principal cause of ocean tides, which play a vital role in earth"s ecology. The moon also contributes to the planet"s stable spin axis. Without its tailor-made moon, our planet would wobble like a spinning top, perhaps even tipping right over and turning on its side, as it were! The resulting climatic, tidal, and other changes would be catastrophic.Earth"s tilt of about 23.4 degrees causes the annual cycle of seasons, moderates temperatures, and allows for a wide range of climate zones. "Our planet"s tilt axis seems to be "just right,"" Also "just right" is the length of day and night, a result of earth"s spin. If the speed of rotation were substantially slower, the days would be longer and the side of the earth facing the sun would bake while the other side would freeze. Conversely, if the earth were to spin much faster, the days would be shorter, perhaps just a few hours long, and earth"s rapid spin would cause relentless gale-force winds and other harmful effects.Humans, with all their advanced technology, create countless tons of unrecyclable toxic waste annually. Yet, the earth recycles all its wastes perfectly, using ingenious chemical engineering.

How do you think the earth"s recycling systems arose? "If the Earth"s ecosystem had truly evolved by chance alone, it wouldn"t possibly have been able to reach such a perfect level of environmental harmony," says religion and science writer M. A. Corey.5 Do you agree with his conclusion?"

"For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten.6Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they have no portion anymore to time indefinite in anything that has to be done under the sun." Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6

If God exists, then there wil be no suffering in the world.
"When
Satan led Adam and Eve into disobeying Jehovah, an
important question was raised. Satan did not call into
question Jehovah"s power. Even Satan knows that there
is no limit to Jehovah"s power. Rather, Satan questioned
Jehovah"s right to rule. By calling God a liar who withholds
good from his subjects, Satan charged that Jehovah
is a bad ruler."
"How Jehovah handled the rebellion
would greatly affect all those angels and eventually
all intelligent creation. So, what has Jehovah done? He
has allowed Satan to show how he would rule mankind.
God has also allowed humans to govern themselves under
Satan"s guidance."

http://www.jw-media.org...
http://www.jw.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

Rebuttals

R1: My opponent has layed out as what is most commonly used in my other debates and discussions that are both formal and informal. And there is two things that is wrong with this argument however, before I begin with them I would like to point out that my opponent has dropped my second and third contentions, and they still stand untill my opponent successfully refutes them.

Now, lets begin with the two problems with my opponent's argumen. Theyt are as follows:

1. My first objection will be concerning God's complexity. You see what my opponent and many other people (even some of the voters) fail to realize is that if the universe is the product of a all-powerful being, then that being must be more complex then the universe. This means that if such a god exists then by my opponent's logic then it must also have a creator, but this presents a problem itself, What created him? If the universe is too complex and perfect to be the product of pure chance, then surely this god must also have a creator then. And then comes the question of what created that creator and that creator and so on! It ends in a never ending paradox to think that a creator had to create the universe soley on th fact that the universe is 'too' perfect and complex. Of course after 15 billion years of contant evolution can get us at the point we are now and it doesn't require a bit of a creator's touch to do so.

2. And my second objection is that the universe and the species that are apart of it are not perfect at all. The universe itself is due to it's beginning will also have an end. We know this, but we don't when however we can and have actually found out a good cause that may be the cause of the universes inevitable demise. Scientists have determined and proven that the universe began with what we refer to as the 'Big Bang', and has from that time on to this very moment the universe is expaning outward into the endless freezing abyss of space [1]. And guess what. Sooner or later everything from our sun to the galaxies we see every single night and day will freeze over. Furthermore, I will add that if you look into the night sky sometimes you can see the Andromada Galaxy (the closet galaxy to ours). We are head on a direct collision course for it [2], which will most likely be the death of the human race and all other species of animals on this planet and whatever happens to be on the others. And even further, if we take a look at the species that we see all around us (including ourselves), then you will see if we were designed then our designer wasn't all that good at it. We have fish that are born with eyelids but have no eyes [3], we have the snakes that have eyes but are blind [4], we have the Bull Dog which is born with heart problems [5], and even ourselves are prone to back problems from birth [6], and so on! there is can be written a very long list of these genetic problems that would take weeks if not moths to compile. So as you can see the universe and the organism that inhabbit it are not as perfect as my opponent might want you to think they are.


R2: My opponent's next rebuttal is rather absurd. He says that God while being all-knowing and all-loving, hands over his creation into the hands of Satan even though he already would know how much suffering that would cause the innocent. And himself being all-powerful would at least create something that wouldn't betray him. Therefore, my opponent's second rebuttal holds no water.

I will now give it over to my opponent.

Thank You.

Sources

[1]http://skyserver.sdss.org...
[2]http://www.nasa.gov...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6]http://www.altmd.com...
tylersch96

Con

To start my debate I would live to agree with Pro to say that there is no afterlife. In my last argument
"I stated For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten."

However God has many other qualkities such as : wisdom, justice, power.
To apply justice Satan basically told Jehovah " I can be a better ruler that you" so Jehovahs responce is "I will give you the world and we will see if it is true". And during Jesus time on Earth Satan tempted Jesus. Matthew 4:1-11 "Then Jesus was led by the spirit up into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil. 2 After he had fasted forty days and forty nights, then he felt hungry. 3 Also, the Tempter came and said to him: "If you are a son of God, tell these stones to become loaves of bread." 4 But in reply he said: "It is written, "Man must live, not on bread alone, but on every utterance coming forth through Jehovah"s mouth.""
5 Then the Devil took him along into the holy city, and he stationed him upon the battlement of the temple 6 and said to him: "If you are a son of God, hurl yourself down; for it is written, "He will give his angels a charge concerning you, and they will carry you on their hands, that you may at no time strike your foot against a stone."" 7 Jesus said to him: "Again it is written, "You must not put Jehovah your God to the test.""
8 Again the Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, 9 and he said to him: "All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me." 10 Then Jesus said to him: "Go away, Satan! For it is written, "It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service."" 11 Then the Devil left him, and, look! angels came and began to minister to him."
If you noticed Jesus didnt deny that Satan could give him the world. But he realized that Satan was trying to prove Jehovah wrong. But it failed.
Psalms 90:2 "Before the mountains themselves were born,
Or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land,
Even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God.
So God had no beginning and no end.
Debate Round No. 3
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

Rebuttals

I would first like to start out by saying that even though that my opponent has conseded that there is no afterlife (which poses a problem for his case that I will point out later on in the debate), he has dropped my contention on the impossiblity of omnipotence, and also hasn't addressed the problem of imperfection that I countered his argument from design with. And unless he can refute these, then I will win no matter how many Bibe verses he posts.


R1: The problem with my opponent's rebuttal is that it does explain the problem. God is all-powerful, but he has created beings that are not perfect, and betray him. If he were all-knowing then he would have known the horrible consequences of this action. Because he did this he condems trillions of innocent people to suffering and death. Furthermore, he doesn't do anything about it and therefore, can not possibly be all-loving. Therefore, God's actions and charcteristics as layed out by the Bible contradict. This is a huge blow to my opponent's case.

R2: My opponent also denies the Christian Doctrine of the afterlife. However, even the mainstreem of Christianity (even the Jehovah's Witnesses) believe in an afterlife. My opponent's sect believes that 144,000 people will go to heaven [1]. However, this is impossible for reasons that I have alread stated and that have gone unrefuted. So my opponent hurts himself with his concession.

R3: Then my opponent's only defense against my attack on his argument from design is that he gives a Bible verse (even though this is not evidence at all) that says that God has no beginning nor end. however, this is logically impossible. He said that because the universe is too complex that it has to have a designer, but the designer while even more complex does not have a cause. This is contradictory with in my opponent's logic, and is logically impossible because to everything there must be a cause. Son my opponent fails here.

Conclusion

In conclusion, my opponent has fail in proving that his god exists. I have refutted all of hsi points, and I have countered them with evidence that proves that the Christian god could not have created it. I have proven that afterlives are impossible, and my contention on the impossibility of omnipotence has been totally drropped. And my opponent hasn't refuted my argument from evil. So, I find no reason to accept his claims, and I hind every reason to reject them and his religion. Thank You for reading, I will now await my opponent's last response.

Sources

[1]http://www.religionfacts.com...

tylersch96

Con

No further comments.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
@hghppjfan

What the h3ll?! You vote bombed!
Posted by QuantumOverlord 5 years ago
QuantumOverlord
Just a quick quibble, you say 'no semantics'. I don't understand why, if you define everything clearly and so there can be no misunderstanding (that is to be very semantic) then surely you understand each other and are less likely to be straw manned. A better condition would be to use an established lexicon such as the oxford English dictionary for all your definitions.
Posted by caitlin12419 5 years ago
caitlin12419
Great job Deathbeforedishonour!
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by hghppjfan 5 years ago
hghppjfan
Deathbeforedishonourtylersch96Tied
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:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro, I cannot ignore, had the better resources. However, Con was strong on everything else.
Vote Placed by adontimasu 5 years ago
adontimasu
Deathbeforedishonourtylersch96Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for forfeit in the last round. Arguments to Pro, as Con relied mostly on biblical verses (circular reasoning).
Vote Placed by famer 5 years ago
famer
Deathbeforedishonourtylersch96Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
Deathbeforedishonourtylersch96Tied
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: Forfeit
Vote Placed by Contra 5 years ago
Contra
Deathbeforedishonourtylersch96Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: There were spelling errors on both sides, but Pro overall had a stronger case, as Con overly relied on Bible verses to prove his case.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
Deathbeforedishonourtylersch96Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This is pretty obvious. Forfeiture in final round by con, more and better sources by pro, better arguments by pro.