The Instigator
FuzzyCatPotato
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
anthonysluggett
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: Qur'anic Scientific Foreknowledge 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 5 votes the winner is...
FuzzyCatPotato
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 467 times Debate No: 63893
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (5)

 

FuzzyCatPotato

Con

Resolved: Qur'anic Scientific Foreknowledge Exists

I negate.

RULES
1: The Burden of Proof is on Pro, as Pro is making the positive claim while Con makes no such claim.
2: Pro will forfeit Round 4.
3: Pro must present no more than 1 central claim of Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge in this debate.
4: Failing to fulfill any of these rules is grounds for a 7-point forfeiture.

ROUND SCHEDULE
Round 1: Con states rules, round schedule, and definitions. Pro makes opening arguments.
Round 2: Con rebuts Pro's arguments. Pro rebuts Con's arguments.
Round 3: Con rebuts Pro's arguments. Pro summarizes the debate.
Round 4: Con summarizes the debate. Pro forfeits the round.

DEFINITIONS
Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge
is defined as "that the Qur'an, through Allah's revelations to the prophet Muhammad, accurately predicts scientific knowledge that could not have been known at the time of its writing," [1].
To be Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge, a statement must fit the following five "criteria:
It must be correct. A statement cannot be scientific foreknowledge if it is incorrect, because the scientific method necessarily eschews incorrect data as unscientific.
It must be in the Qur'an. A statement cannot be Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge if it isn't in the Qur'an, because the only possible source of Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge is the Qur'an.
It must be unambiguous. A statement cannot be scientific foreknowledge if it is ambiguous, both because science is necessarily precise and because ambiguity allows modern science to be shoehorned into ancient religion when none is present.
It must have been outside of contemporary knowledge. A statement it cannot be scientific foreknowledge if it was already known, because this makes the "foreknowledge" into merely "knowledge" and makes divine intervention unnecessary.
It must have been outside of contemporary technology. A statement cannot be considered scientific foreknowledge if it was knowable with the technology of the time, because this makes divine intervention unnecessary," [1].

To exist is to "have objective reality or being[,]" [2].

REFERENCES
[1] http://rationalwiki.org...
[2] https://www.google.com...
Debate Round No. 1
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

I remind Pro that the Burden of Proof is on Pro, and if they do not prove that Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge exists, then they have lost the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

I remind Pro that the Burden of Proof is on Pro, and if they do not prove that Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge exists, then they have lost the debate.
anthonysluggett

Pro

anthonysluggett forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

Pro has forfeited Round 3.

Vote Con.

Pro had the burden of proof in this debate, and has never fulfilled it. Thus, Con must win.

Furthermore, Pro has forfeited a round, while Con has not.

Furthermore, Pro has provided no sources, while Con has provided 2.
anthonysluggett

Pro

you just said the words Qur'anic Scientific Foreknowledge so they must exist
you must be blind
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
FuzzyCatPotatoanthonysluggettTied
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: pro attacked con and ff'd, at the same time not fulfilling his BoP at all
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
FuzzyCatPotatoanthonysluggettTied
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 and more reliable resource
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 2 years ago
TrasguTravieso
FuzzyCatPotatoanthonysluggettTied
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: FE + no arguments from Pro
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
FuzzyCatPotatoanthonysluggettTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was rude and never refuted Pro.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
FuzzyCatPotatoanthonysluggettTied
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 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: Pro ff a round, made no arguments, and had no sources.