The Instigator
Moroni23
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Strong Evidence of God's Existence

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...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,271 times Debate No: 48354
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

Moroni23

Pro

Just to be perfectly clear, I am NOT arguing that I have 100% proof that God exists. It should be clear to everybody that there is just no 100% proof either way. It would be naive and arrogant to say otherwise.

I will be arguing that I have evidence (or grounds for belief) of the existence of a supreme being or intelligence. Con's argument will be to discredit my evidence.

Definitions

Evidence- Grounds for belief. [http://dictionary.reference.com...]
God- A supreme being or intelligence.

RULES
I can't stand people who don't respect a persons beliefs. There will be no name calling, 'constructive criticism', or rude remarks in the body of the debate. If you feel it is necessary to make any of those remarks, please take it to the comment section.

Stay professional and courteous at all times.

You will have 48 hours to respond with a 5,000 character argument.

Have fun and keep an open mind.

STRUCTURE

Round 1- Introductions and Debate Acceptance
*Feel free to introduce yourself as a person, and quickly describe why you feel you would be a credible person to argue this debate.

Round 2- Opening Arguments

Round 3- Main Arguments/Rebuttals

Round 4- Closing Arguments/Rebuttals

INTRODUCTION

My History- I first joined this site about three years ago and participated in about 8 religious debates. After those debates I realized I was very young, immature, and I was very bias and closed minded about my arguments. I left this site for two years and just recently returned. I currently work for Xerox Corporation as a Strategic Account Manager, and I have been in the Army reserves for over 4 years.

My Religion- I am a convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I have graduated a 4 year seminary institution course. I have spent many years searching for, and debating the existence of a God.

Why This Debate- I believe in years of studying the topic I have finally found credible evidence of God's existence. I am exited to put this evidence to the test and see what kind of arguments a Con would come up with.

Good luck!
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

I accept. My debate record speaks for itself with regards to why I am a credible person to debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Moroni23

Pro

I would like to thank Con for accepting this debate. This is a new theory I have recently discovered and am excited to put it to the test. I am confident by reviewing his debate record that he can come up with a good opposing argument, and provide me with some helpful, positive feedback.

Opening Arguments

My argument will be based upon a theory that once the likely hood/statistic of an event becomes so rare/unlikely, our mind rules it out as impossible, or highly improbable, without the help of intellectual intervention.

To be perfectly clear, I am not talking about events we would consider "miracles". I am talking about events we would consider "impossible". We declare them as impossible because even though there is always the extremely small chance that the event was some sort of freak circumstance of chance, the likely hood/statistic of that event happening by chance is so high, our mid rules it out as impossible, or highly improbable, without the help of intellectual intervention.

Example: You come across a man who is holding four decks of cards. He throws those cards all up into the air. The cards begin to land in a fashion that creates a perfect card castle. Nobody in their right mind would write that phenomenon off as a circumstance of chance. You would have seen strong evidence, or strong grounds for belief, that an intellectual force you cannot see or understand is at work (whether that intellect is a magician, a trickster, ext...).

You see, the actual statistic doesn't really matter. At some point the odds of that event happening become so rare we have to consider it evidence of intellectual intervention. You and I both know that if I were to throw four decks of cards in the air one million times, a hundred million times, ten trillion times, it would never land as a card castle, ever. Keep in mind I am not saying you have 100% proof. You will always have a small chance that it could have happened by chance. But I am saying the phenomenon is so rare and perfect that you absolutely have to consider it to be strong evidences of intellectual intervention.

I will be arguing that science itself is our evidence of God"s existence. I personally believe that the creator set it up that way. Call it his sense of humor to have the biggest skeptics and antagonists in the universe working day in and day out unintentionally coming up with more and more evidence of his existence. The more we find out and understand about how perfect this planet really is to contain life, the less and less probable it becomes that it was all just a circumstance of chance, and the stronger the evidence gets that a supreme being was at work in the creation. In the main arguments I will explain four examples of science that create an environment so perfect and rare, nobody in their right mind can write it off as some freak circumstance of chance.

Steven Michael Anderson
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

My opponent spend his whole last round simply outlining the argument he is going to make, but he hasn't outlined this argument yet. Now, I would agree that something occurring with such a low probability probably isn't the case (like throwing cards in the air and having them land making a house of cards by chance). However, my opponent has not defended the notion that if things don't come together by chance, that means that it is due to intelligence. This assumes a dichotomy between:

Chance

&

Intelligence


However, why think those are the only two options? This just seems like an argument from ignorance in the works. Anyway, since my opponent did not present an argument yet which is supposed to be strong evidence for God's existence, I will wait until the argument arrives.
Debate Round No. 2
Moroni23

Pro

Moroni23 forfeited this round.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

My opponent forfeited...
Debate Round No. 3
Moroni23

Pro

Moroni23 forfeited this round.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

My opponent forfeited...
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by gray28 3 years ago
gray28
Unless you can provide an argument that yours is the sole correct and advantageous belief and unless you can also provide strong physical evidence for the existence of soul, God, and heaven you have lost the debate. These are the onuses for anyone wishing to argue that we magically continue past death.
Posted by Moroni23 3 years ago
Moroni23
Sounds good. Glad to see that you are a reasonable human being. Thanks for compromising, and good luck to you.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
How is this off topic, when it is a huge part of your argument most likely? Anyway, I don't want to debate you in the comment section, I accepted a formal debate. Post your first round, and defend the resolution.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
How is this off topic, when it is a huge part of your argument most likely? Anyway, I don't want to debate you in the comment section, I accepted a formal debate. Post your first round, and defend the resolution.
Posted by Moroni23 3 years ago
Moroni23
I don't want to clog this debate up with unnecessary, off topic arguments. I was trying to clarify ahead of time. All i am saying is that if you were to witness a phenomenon (any phenomenon) for arguments sake lets say a man waved his hands over a dead guy and at that exact moment he woke up and was alive, you can argue either way, but there will only be two arguments.

1) It is a circumstance of chance. Meaning it happened completely at random, and the man waving his hands got extremely lucky.
2) Some sort of intellectual being was behind it. That intellectual being could be a God, a magician, a trickster, or any other type of intelligence at work.

I don't have a problem if you disagree but please enlighten me as to what a third possibility could be so I can understand? Lets clarify this ahead of time so we do not have to spend time in the debate arguing it.
Posted by Exlonghorn 3 years ago
Exlonghorn
Concur with Sswdwm. The way you're structuring the argument requires the presupposition of an invisible intellectual being. If you believe your argument in favor of the existence of a god is strong, then you should not feel compelled to stack the deck in your favor. Hopefully we can all agree to work at avoiding logical fallacies and have a good debate.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
No, in fact, I would definitely disagree with that statement. If you want to defend it in the debate, the do it, but I will contest it.
Posted by Sswdwm 3 years ago
Sswdwm
I don't see how that's a logically credible statement. The correct statement is a phenomenon is either manipulated by an invisible intelligent being, o4 not manipulated by an invisible intelligent being. False and pretty obtuse dilemma.
Posted by Moroni23 3 years ago
Moroni23
Rational Thinker, I forgot to put this in the rules would you agree to this statement?

When witnessing a phenomenon you are left with only two choices, to either declare that phenomenon a circumstance of chance, or admit that some sort of intellectual being you cannot see at the time has manipulated the outcome. There is NO third choice available.
Posted by Moroni23 3 years ago
Moroni23
Wow?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by MrDelaney 3 years ago
MrDelaney
Moroni23Rational_Thinker9119Tied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Points to Con for the forfeit.
Vote Placed by Sojourner 3 years ago
Sojourner
Moroni23Rational_Thinker9119Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con for Pro's forfeit, Arguments to Con for effectively rebutting the argument fragment put forth by Pro. Personal Note: I need to remember to scan debates for forfeits before investing any time in reading them.