The Instigator
ScottyDouglas
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

The Biblical God exist and is Morally justified!

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 6 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,306 times Debate No: 24122
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (6)

 

ScottyDouglas

Pro

Hello! Thanks and I hope you accept.

Pro resolution: The Biblical God exist and Is morally justified.

Victory: To win Pro/Con must provide the best arguement. Ones own Personal arguements are suggested. Promoting less sources and more personnel belief and/or faith.

Since I am the Pro and first to act I will make these permises-
1. Winner is the debater that provides the most convincing arguement(Voters personnel beliefs are not required.)
2. Must be primarily of the debaters own words and not resources.(though resources can be allowed in minimal useage.)

If my opponent agrees we will go forward.

Rules:
1. Witty comebacks and Sarcasm allowed. Must be respectful.
2. Must provided resources.(If used)
3. Must stay on topic within the boundaries provided above.
4. If Pro/Con is able to provide the most reasonable clear and explainable resolution- then they win.

Rounds:
1. Agreement/Approval
2. Arguements
3. Rebuttals/Arguements
4. Rebuttals/Arguement
5.Rebuttals/Conclusion
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

State your case.
Debate Round No. 1
ScottyDouglas

Pro

I would like to thank Rational_Thinker9119 for this debate. This is a great topic and I am sure my opponent feels the same.(`;')

I was called to defend my belief in my principles and this is what I am doing. This is not emotional but rational thinking. Im sure my opponent with display his thoughts on the matter in a dual rational way.

Resolved By Pro: The Biblical God exist and is Morally justified!

Opening-

To actually win here I must provide that God is in fact an actual being; or I must achieve the basic needs of God's existance. I also must provide that God's moral is founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct. That God expresses or conveys in truths or has right conduct. As I will defend or uphold both as warranted and give a well-grounded reason.

Morality is a code of content that helps to guide our behaviors, decisions and actions, helping people to choose between right and wrong. I contended that God displays all of those attributes and submit that without God those attributes can not exist. I move on to the points of my Arguement.

Points Contended For=

Contention I : God's Existance-

Can anyone be absolutely certain that God does/doesn't exists? Science and logic make his existence seem very likely to me. Even if the concept of scientific theories were not problematic, the fact that there is no conclusive scientific proof of the existence, or non-existence, of God mainly demonstrates that the existence of God is not a scientific question but a personnal one. I provide four reasons why God exist:

A. The "nothing is caused by itself" argument. Again, we cannot go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause, which is God.

B. Maximun Goodness. Objects in the world have differing degrees of qualities such as goodness. But speaking of more or less goodness makes sense only by comparison with what is the maximum goodness, which is God.

C. The teleological argument (argument from design). There must be an intelligent designer who directs all things and this is God.

D. Personnel experience arguement. I myself have had experience in connecting with God. There have been countless amounts of people who have also had this experience. These people range from all different walks of life. Are we to conclude they and myself are mentally impaired and/or ill?

Contention II : God is Just-

There is no injustice with God. In all his actions, he is completely fair. Because God is just, he will treat all fairly. With the same coin, He will judge all fairly by thier works.

Conention III: God's morality-

God is not required to explain moral systems to the letter. Yet the compassionate or just treatment of humans by God shows his willingness to give a moral plan to man. Others who don't have moral systems is one of the most compelling arguments ever offered for the existence of a moral God.

Contention IV: Man's Justification-

We are justified, declared righteous, at the moment of our salvation. Justification does not make us righteous, but rather pronounces us righteous. We are by right through God given Justification to establish what is moral through God's word and not the latter.

Points Contending Against=

Contention I: Spiritual Decay-

There has been such a over-emphasis on social and political aspects of life, that lead to greater spiritual decay. It is still God's word that is necessary in every life, and it is still only by the directing influence of the Holy Spirit through the gospel, that souls will be saved.

Contention II: Moral Decay-

The term moral decay is used to describe the lack of moral codes or ethics that can be attributed to a lack of accountability. Moral decay may lead to the loss of moral fortitude. If the giver of morality is absent in a person's life then their base for morality will decay. Today more and more Moral decay is becoming ever so accepted.

Contention III: Physical Decay-

We observe physical decay on a massive scale because of immoral acts against nature(including animals and man.) Our natural habitat is being diminished because to many have little concern for thier own inhabitat in which they live.

Contention IV: Lack of knowledge-

The universe has not always existed or has it? If It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion. They also have no cause for natural order that must be maintained or otherwise order would cease and life would diminish.

Closing-

But if you wish to be more than just a rational thinker whose belief is based on science and common sense, there is a way to know God more intimately. It is by personal revelation. If we sincerely turn to God, he will reveal himself to us. Then knowing of full morality and virtue is achieved.

I turn it over to my opponent. Thanks!

http://dictionary.reference.com...
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

I thank my opponent for engaging in this debate with me, lets see if any of his arguments can hold up.

Contention I : God's Existence-

My opponent states that science and logic make God's existence very likely to him, however science and logic make God's existence very unlikely to me, but that is not an argument. It was also stated that the fact that there is no scientific proof of the existence, or non-existence, of God demonstrates that the existence of God is not a scientific question but a personal one. However, this is flawed reasoning because there is no scientific proof of the existence, or non-existence of extraterrestrials, and their existence certainly isn't a strictly personal matter. I understand the point Pro is trying to get across, but it seems he is struggling.

A. The "nothing is caused by itself" argument. Again, we cannot go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause, which is God.

This says nothing about something coming into being uncased. Also, even if there was a cause of the universe (which I do not believe is the case), it wouldn't follow from this that the cause was God. Thus, nothing my opponent said with regards to section "A" actually supposed the idea of a God existing.

B. Maximum Goodness. Objects in the world have differing degrees of qualities such as goodness. But speaking of more or less goodness makes sense only by comparison with what is the maximum goodness, which is God.

My opponent simply asserted that if there are varying degrees of something that it can only make sense if there is a"maximal" version of that something. Let me try to illustrate the fallacy:

Objects in the world have differing degrees of qualities such as smelliness. But speaking of more of less smelliness makes sense only by comparison with what is the maximum smelliness, which is Gorg the garbage/ vomit being (If you imagine a being more smelly than Gorg, then that being would be Gorg).

So, my opponent's argument here is extremely weak.

C. The teleological argument (argument from design). There must be an intelligent designer who directs all things and this is God.

Yes, I'm aware of the argument however you did not defend any reasons for why the conclusion of this argument is true. Thus, I will boldly dismiss this argument.

D. Personnel experience argument. I myself have had experience in connecting with God. There have been countless amounts of people who have also had this experience. These people range from all different walks of life. Are we to conclude they and myself are mentally impaired and/or ill?

We are all mentally ill in some way, it's all about degrees. Have you ever thought someone was calling your name when they weren't? Have you ever flipped out on someone? Have you ever talked to yourself? Also, there is no shame in having an experiencing and interpreting it as supernatural, I'm just saying it's an error in reasoning because the experience most likely stemmed from some sort of misfiring of neurons that took place in the brain.

Plus lets not forget, countless people have had alien abduction experiences. Does this mean, that people are really being abducted by aliens? Of course not, it's due to a sleep disorder.

Also, people from "different walks of life" mostly have experiences that involve different types of God's. If there was one true objective afterlife or alternate reality, then why do people mostly have experiences which coincide specifically with the religion they believe in? Now, some people have seen Jesus that weren't Christian, but Christianity is the biggest religion so it's no surprise.

Contention II : God is Just-

There is no injustice with God. In all his actions, he is completely fair. Because God is just, he will treat all fairly. With the same coin, He will judge all fairly by their works.

You have just presented your case as nothing more than a bare assertion. Regardless, if you believe that hellfire is real then this mean he punishes people infinitely for finite crimes. This is not just action, because a just being treats an offender with a punishment equal to the crime.

Contention III: God's morality-

God is not required to explain moral systems to the letter. Yet the compassionate or just treatment of humans by God shows his willingness to give a moral plan to man. Others who don't have moral systems is one of the most compelling arguments ever offered for the existence of a moral God.

This is yet another, bare assertion fallacy. I do not feel obligated to respond to this.

Contention IV: Man's Justification-

We are justified, declared righteous, at the moment of our salvation. Justification does not make us righteous, but rather pronounces us righteous. We are by right through God given Justification to establish what is moral through God's word and not the latter.

Yup, you guessed it. Another bare assertion fallacy..

Points Contending Against=

Contention I: Spiritual Decay-

This argument from my opponent just begs the question. What reason is there for anyone to believe spirits actually exist?

Contention II: Moral Decay-

There is no evidence or reason to think this argument is true, it was once more, a bare assertion fallacy.

Contention III: Physical Decay-

This doesn't seem to have any relation to the issue of God's existence.

Contention IV: Lack of knowledge-

A lack of knowledge doesn't = God did it. This is an argument from ignorance, and a God of the Gaps fallacy.


Closing-


Ask the Jews in the concentration camps if they felt the immediate presence of God when they sincerely turned to him. Why don't you read about all the Jews who lost their faith after that? God clearly doesn't reveal himself to anybody. A soccer player who scored goals all the time will thank Jesus and think he is experiencing him, but a child starving in Africa wonders why God doesn't care...The idea of God is all psychological in my opinion.

Anyway, my opponent failed to meet his burden and I pointed out countless fallacies. Thus, the debate is leaning in my favor.

Debate Round No. 2
ScottyDouglas

Pro

I would like to thank Rational_Thinker9119 for this debate..(`;')

I was called to defend my belief in my principles and that is what I am going to do.

Resolved By Pro: The Biblical God exist and is Morally justified!

Opening-
To actually win here I must provide that God is in fact an actual being; or I must achieve the basic needs of God's existence. I also must provide that God's moral is founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct. That God expresses or conveys in truths or has right conduct. As I will defend or uphold both as warranted and give a well-grounded reason.

Points Contending For=

Contention I : God's Existence-

Common challengers of believers in God, say that God is nothing more than made-up or a illusion. He is a escape from reality to help us through life. I agree that religion is a made up dream of the human mind. Though God Himself is not.
This is why most give truth or false to a belief based on its source. Just because you was taught math by a mentally challenged person does not mean what you learned was any less true. Just because there are no empirical signs to a non-believer about God does not mean He is not real. This is again asserting that believers that experience God have distinct mental disorders. I am quite sure a perfectly sane person is able to discern the difference between random noises and/or talking to themselves from the difference of the God they experience.

My opponent has not provided one link between mental disorders and revelations of God. So why should we accept such theories?

A. The "nothing is caused by itself" argument.

The big bang had no scientifically identifiable cause, and since the big bang represents when the universe came into being, it is unlikely that there ever will be a scientifically identifiable cause. There by only option relying on the theory that something has to be in existence to cause something to exist. And if there is a cause that made things exist then only theist have the best explanation for that cause- God.

B. Maximum Goodness.

To determine whether there is a Maximum Goodness then we should look around and see if there are a wide variety of good acts opposed to not so good acts. We should also factor in those who seemingly always do good acts compared to people who seemingly always do not do good acts. We must agree in society we strive to be viewed as respectable to most our peers. Striving towards something means there is a higher road (which you are striving) and a lower road(which you are leaving.) So it is only logical to assume that there is a Maximum Goodness and Maximum Badness rather than secluded to one road for all because we know there are variety of roads from both spectrum's and in between. Which leads us to what's at the end of that higher road- God.

C. The teleological argument (argument from design).

It is very easy to see that many things have a certain order about them in life. For a example: The sun comes up ever morning on time, The seasons change every four months (though seems they don't), and law confines our activities. Everything has a design and order about it. People say,"that is just the way things are," and I agree it is the way things just are by a designed effort. Our entire universe by design must function the way it does or earth would suffer and we would not have life. What causes this order and design- God.

D. Personnel experience argument.

People from all over history believers and non-believers have recorded and been witness to acts called 'miracles.' How can we brush off theirs valid claims to mental disorders? I myself can acclaim to such acts. When I read my Bible, Pray, or just talk to others about God, alot of times I get overcome with the Holy Ghost, and I know Im quite sane. Though recently it has been played off as mental disorder and cases as these are put behind closed doors and nobody knows about them or cares. Though eye-witnesses and personnel experience of such cases are not as easily brushed off by them personally.

Contention II : God is Just-

God's character is the highest standard by which any human behavior is measured. God always acts with the requirements of His character as revealed in His law (which is were our law derived from.) By Him all creatures are given there due. How is He not?

Conention III: God's morality-

God being the cause of all things coming into being would also display the whole spectrum of morals.

Contention IV: Man's Justification-

God justified man. God gave man the courage to strife for a greater gain. God bestowed His attributes upon man therefore man is under God's Law. His law is established within his Kingdom and as is so below unto ours.

Points Contending Against=

Contention I: Spiritual Decay-

My opponent mentioned we do not know if spirits exist! That tells me you can not prove they do not. It also means you can not deny all the people who supposedly experienced such things. It makes since that if 'spirits' exist then only people who believe in such can identify with those things. God gives spiritual enrichment. Without God your spirit with wither and decay.

Contention II: Moral Decay-

Our moral fabric as a society has left us to allow any act as permissible and by freedom rights are given it. Our fabric has been garnished by uninhibited live styles and has been encouraged by younger and younger generations. As generations come and go, less and less will care about good and decent. We are well on our way to a real world of 'survival of the fittest.' Laws will eventually become useless and then the,'Take and do as you please if you can', attitudes (which is already starting today) will run rampant.

Contention III: Physical Decay-

We can read the paper and watch the TV and see that the world around us is becoming more and more polluted. We have for 20 years been taught about global warming and its dangers. Our drinking water is becoming less and less drinkable. Where does this type of pollution come from? Mans lack of morality. The lack of this morality towards our world has started to majorally effect it. There are new theories everyday to why our world is becoming so polluted. We wipe-out entire inhabitants that are for other species, some on the brink of extinction. This is man's fault and his lack of morality for earth and life. Abd because of this lack of care and moral attitude for the earth and themselves causes physical decay more rapidly.

Contention IV: Lack of knowledge-

This should not be any problem to understand. We constantly are learning and therefore do not know all things. That in turn makes it safe to say that we will never know allthings. If we will never know allthings then it is impossible to claim as such. To appear to know how the origin of all life came about is one of those things we will never know. The problem is not that we wont, the problem is science does not want admit it, instead they keep telling us things they could not possible know. This in turn hurts there creditability when other suspious theories come forward.

Rebuttals-

My opponent talks about assertion, here we see a grand case of it, he asserts to know Jews truely turned to God during the holocaust and denies Hitlers fault in it. Also my opponent asserts that God does not care. My opponent should show reason why God should help a starving girl in Africa when her fellow humans are the ones allowing her to starve. God provides all we need for morality, we as people choose not to be moral and act depraved toward one another. -Classic God must do everything for us fallacy.

Closing- We may conclude, then, that we have reason to believe God exists.

Thanks to my oppponent!
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Contention I : God's Existence-

" This is again asserting that believers that experience God have distinct mental disorders. I am quite sure a perfectly sane person is able to discern the difference between random noises and/or talking to themselves from the difference of the God they experience.

My opponent has not provided one link between mental disorders and revelations of God. So why should we accept such theories?"

My opponent is straw manning my stance and shifting the burden of proof. I said we are all mentally unstable in some way, none of us have perfect mental heath. I wasn't saying that all believers in God have some specific medical condition, this is absurd. Regardless, Pro is acting like the burden is on me to show how God is a delusion. However, the burden is on my opponent to show that God does in fact exist.

A. Pro is begging the question here, why must the universe even have a cause at all? I do not see why it must, and Pro has not demonstrated this.

B. Striving towards something doesn't mean it exists. For example. there are different levels of fighting skills but that doesn't mean a Super Saiyan exists because they all strive to be the most maximal fighter. So, just because there are different levels of good that doesn't mean some perfect good exists.

C. There is no reason to think that order automatically equates to intelligence. Just because intelligence can produce order, that doesn't mean all order comes from intelligence. I mean, a Chinese man can build a computer, that doesn't mean all computers are build by Chinese people. So, just because intelligence can produce order, that doesn't mean all order is created by intelligence. It definitely does not appear that way.

D. There is no evidence these people experienced anything supernatural, thus these experiences can be dismissed as evidence for God.

Contention II : God is Just-

My opponent is committing the bare assertion fallacy again. Also, he is shifting the burden of proof by asking me "why he is not?". Regardless, I already explained that if eternal hell fire exists that God cannot be just.

Conention III: God's morality-

If God's nature is the way it is because it is good, then this means there is an independent standard of good. Thus, God could not be the source of good. If God's nature is good simply because whatever God's nature is, is necessarily good, then if God's nature was that of a murderer or rapist these attributes would be necessarily good, because whatever was God's nature would be necessarily good.

The theist could claim that God's nature could not be that of a murderer of rapist, because since by necessity, God's nature must be good. However, without an independent standard of good, any attributes possible could be applied to God's nature, and they would be good necessarily when we know some acts if objective, are evil.

Therefore, there must be some independent source of good besides God and his nature ontologically.

Contention IV: Man's Justification-

This is nothing more than a bare assertion on my opponents behalf. He keeps explaining what he believes the situation is, but he doesn't explain why anybody should believe him.

Points Contending Against=

Contention I: Spiritual Decay-

This is shifting the burden again, I don't have to show that spirits do not exist. The burden is on my opponent, and he gave no reason to think spirits exist, this idea has just been asserted like all of his other arguments .

Contention II: Moral Decay-

My opponent says that as generations come and go we are getting less moral. However, people are more moral now than they were in the days of the Old Testament, and I bet more people do not believe in God now more than ever. There is simply no way to tie this into God's actual existence anyway.

Contention III: Physical Decay-

This has nothing to do with God. If God exists or he doesn't, how would that change any "physical decay?".

Contention IV: Lack of knowledge-

Pro claims we will probably never know what caused the origin of life. If this is true, we could never know if God did it or not. Thus, my opponent shot himself in the foot if he is trying to show that God did it. Also, I bet we will find out. Science isn't even close to reaching it's limitations.

Rebuttals

I never said God had to do everything for us, I just said he cannot be moral if he has the power to stop evil and doesn't. I also debunked Pro's claim that people can immediately experience God if they want, by mentioning that many people have wanted this but it doesn't come, it only comes to those who trick themselves into believing it's true.

My opponent should show reason why God should help a starving girl in Africa when her fellow humans are the ones allowing her to starve.

God is the one allowing her to starve if he exists, by not doing anything to help her. Thus, God cannot be all good, because an all good God would help her. However, God is defined as all good, so God probably does not exist.

Conclusion

My opponent failed to meet has burden, and I tore down all his arguments with ease.
Debate Round No. 3
ScottyDouglas

Pro

I would like to thank Rational_Thinker9119 for this debate..(`;')

Full Rebuttal:

Con suggests that I am putting the full burden of proof on him and I am not doing as such. I would suggest a valid and theoried reason from my opponent why God should not exist in the light of evidence that suggest He does.
Evidence can come in many ways and forms. The most typical evidence for God is personnel experience as I have suggested. Though another form is the quanity of the claims and I do not have to display the endless accounts of belief in a God throughout the world. And another would be the physical evidence of nature that there is always someone bigger than you. In nature we see that there is a order called, 'The Food Chain.' In the food chain one animal eats another and the ranks of order are achieved. It is simply not logical to assume that man does not have a higher order than himself.

My opponent wants to appear that he is using rational thinking though I do not think he is here. A rational thinking person weighs all the evidence and claim and comes to well thought hypothesis about history at hand.

Someone clinging to science in full can not do this. The reason they can not do this is because truely validating God comes only in one form and that is personnel experience which my opponent can not deny happens. Science in itself must rely on a method to test the theory at hand. Well there is no method but personnel experience. So a rational thinker would say that since science has limits to its ability to discover, that it can never find God. God is beyond the aspects of any scientific method. Scientist and those that rely on scientific dogma know this about God and also know that they can not use science to find Him. So instead they use thier scientific standards that people respect and push dogma that scientific study has elimated God as a possibility. This is simply not so and insults the bulk of people who have these personnel experiences and connect with God.

So to talk about personnel experiences and the thoughts of it being some kind of mental illness is absurd. My opponent would be right that most of society have had some kind of trama and in effect to that trama has developed a mental issue. Well wouldn't a issue with thinking that you experience spiritual awareness that is not there be a special case of mental illness? If so then there are too many cases to count and the number grows further with every generation. It is flatout denial of truth and opression of peoples experiences to claim this as such.

Contentions:

My opponent wants us to believe the universe does not need as cause. I think it is quite funny to claim many to have a illness then say that something came from nothing. Life came from non-life. Thats a bold statement considering no one alive has seen things form from nothing. To suggest this of our universe is also a bold assurtion that defies our physical laws.

My opponent is partially right about how there could not be a perfect goodness. I do not think man can have a perfect goodness without God Himself. Though I think there are many examples of perfectness in natural ways. The reason something would be perfect is because it conforms to its nature. It does what it was intended to do. If thier was not a ulimate goodness then what is the reason to strive for moral excellence and common good? Maybe man does not know maximum goodness and can never achieve it but it is for sure out there. We strive to make our lives better, our entire communities better! This does not show a desire for a greater goodness? This greater goodness is eluding most today because of lack of our moral fortitude.

My opponent also suggests that order does not need intelligence. I think he is wrong. We have many things in nature that appear to have order to it. Though does it? I would like to know of something that does not have order to it? The reason this order must have intelligence is because of the intelligence we place in our own lives to develop order to it. We are just mimicing the universe and its order. Man puts everything in order in whatever task is ahead to bring about stability for himself. This natural intelligence for order shows a deeper intellgence that designed it that way as we do.
The experience of God is the evidence of it! Also combined with countless other experiences. Just because you do not experience them and science shrugs it off, gives you no right to claim dismissial of it.

My opponents lastly questions God's morality because children starve, Hell exist, and we are developing better moral today. I do not agree.

My opponent like many today in society like to play the blame game. This ia a fallacy as I said before is,'God should help always plea', and this simply is not true. God by just creating us provided any person with all they need. God also gave a moral guideline to live by (agree with the Bible or not), He gave one. What do you expect from God? Does He need to hold your hand walking down the street? My opponent insults God's character and judgement as being immoral. This is just a broader step into my other contentions that deal with decay.

We as people in a whole are decaying. Our moral fabric is losing its potency and anyone with a few years of age has seen this suddenly approach. Our society once left thier doors unlocked because people were to be trusted. Today that old tradition has been trampled on without remorse. Our younger society coming up has not developed the moral conduct that will drive us into higher goodness as a people. The reasons they have not developed this is because these moral triats have become less reared. Instead personnal gain and knowledge is admired.

Have we really improved as a society into a more improved moral state? Who determines such things? Does ever evolving rights and laws make morality? Does society decide whats right and if so does that make it right? I ask were did we get our basic moral code of conduct?

I believe that the criminal element in our lives cannot be dissociated from the moral depravity in the ranks of modern society. The last two decades have seen a terrifying decline in standards among the governing and social bodies. Alcoholism, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, abortion, homosexuality, school violence, child abuse, pornography, rape, robbery and murder pervade our nation. America is drowning in wickedness and immorality. By all measures, this storm threatens to erode the moral and political foundations of America. Yet we celebrate people who live empty lives like this.

So in the end man is to blame for people starving not God. Man is to blame for millions being killed not God. And if God(as thiest say He did)gave us Law to obey and we do not. Why wouldn't we deserve His brand of justice? Do we not kill murders? Do we not go to other countries and kill for freedom? I think we all can agree that the bad deserve punishment and what is branded as right to some is not so right to others. We can all day debate what we feel is right and wrong but we are over stepping boundaries to question a God that created you and gave you Law to live by. His motives would not be questionable as He knows best.

Thanks to Con for a funn debate and I turn back over to him:
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Full Rebuttal:

My opponent is under the false impression that I have to show why God does not exist in light of all this "evidence". However this is false, all I have to do is show why his reasons for God existing are not sufficient since he has the burden of proof. Also, most of his "evidence" has been bare assertions, and it's kind of hard to point out flaws in reasoning to an argument which is just asserted without reasoning to support it.


My opponent is also under the false assumption that personal experience has any bearing on whether anybody else should believe you or not. My ex-girlfriend told me about a story about how her bed shook uncontrollably, and I have heard this story from other people too who believe they have been visited by ghosts. Of course, does this mean it actually happened? Of course not. Also, people claim to have been abducted by aliens, this happens all the time and they claim it is a "personal experience". Sometimes humans believe weird things, it's no biggie...Also, if there is always "something higher" then if we use this line of reasoning, there must be "something higher" than God if there is always something higher. If on the other hand, there is a limit to how much "higher" you can go, then why can't the limit be us, or some extraterrestrial?

Pro seems to be claiming that I am not using rational thinking here, however this is exactly what I am doing by rationally demonstrating how irrational my opponent's arguments are.

Contentions:

"My opponent wants us to believe the universe does not need as cause. I think it is quite funny to claim many to have a illness then say that something came from nothing. Life came from non-life. That's a bold statement considering no one alive has seen things form from nothing. To suggest this of our universe is also a bold assertion that defies our physical laws."

This is false, the universe could have sprang into existence uncaused and this would completely comply with the laws of physics, so it seems Pro needs to brush up on his knowledge:

"Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know—the universe. Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness—a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility" - Heinz Pagals. American Physicist, an adjunct Professor of Physics at Rockefeller University

Alexander Vilenkin (another well respected physicist) believes the universe began as a quantum nucleation event from an empty geometry without a cause. So to say that the laws of physics do not allow for this, is simply false.

My opponent is also wrong about order needing in intelligence, this is false, most order in the universe is due to non-intelligent causation. There is much order seen in the patterns of snow flakes but the chemical reactions that occur in the clouds are not intelligent. There is much order seen in galaxy formations but gravity is not intelligent, it seems that when we produce order, we are in the minority compared to a grand scale of order coming from non-intelligent causation.

Pro also asserts that it's a fallacy to think that God has to do whatever we want. However, this is straw-manning my stance (which is also a fallacy). I'm saying, that if there is a being who is all powerful and who cares about whether we suffer or not, then there is no good reason why he wouldn't help children who are starving. There may be one, but this situation is still much more likely on Atheism than Theism even if there is some possible escape route.

So it seems that even if men are responsible for evil and moral decay, God knew we would do this because he is omniscient, so he still is responsible for it all because he could have not created us if he wanted, and spared reality from our evil ways. Thus, It's clear that if God exists, he is the sole reason why any suffering exists. However, God is defined as maximally good and omnipotent, but this being doesn't seem to exist in reality in light of this logic.

Finally, Pro said there is no reason to question Gods motives if he exists. However, I disagree, he could be a deceiving God, and a deceiving God would want you to think just that.
Conclusion

Pro's arguments here were pretty terrible, and he failed to meet his burden of proof. However, I met my burden in undermining his claims.


Debate Round No. 4
ScottyDouglas

Pro

I would like to thank Rational_Thinker9119 for this debate..(`;')

Conclusion:

All I have to do is show reasons why God exist. My opponent says they are not sufficient since I have the burden of proof. Also I'm stumped as to why my opponent claims I offer just bare assertions when in light of the evidence, God seems apparent.

Then I have no clue why a personnel experience has no bearing on belief of it. This assumption would not be false and in fact the beginnings of way to observe this event again. My opponent even admits that he doesn't believe his own girlfriends personnel opinion on the subject. I agree that just because someone says something does not mean that it is true. I think we all experience everyday. But I'm not offering one or two experiences. I offering trillions. These numbers and documented evidences are to much to simply ignore as make believe. W edo believe in some weird stuff and many have a different aspect of God but the belief in that God is constant. The majority of all societies derive from belief in some sort of God. My opponent also wants to assert that aliens do not exist. The word aliens period is a assumption cause maybe they are not alien at all. Though I do offer millions of UFo claims that we are not the only life. I do not believe in aliens as we know them but it is a expanding phenomena.

My opponent offers us a quote. I thank him for this quote because it proves a point I am trying to make. In his quote "We can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know—the universe." Right here is saying that all they are doing is speculating from observing. Then on it says," Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness—a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang." Again here we start with maybe. I think this quote itself hurst my opponents case. In trying to prove your point when you have modern science backing, you choose in bringing up a quote with 'Speculation' and 'Maybe' as its key words is a grave error in my opponents part because it helps my points. He also offers another quote from Alexander Vilenkin that portrays his belief in the Big Bang not facts.

In the patterns of order in our universe would go to us both because nature could have been designed for order and it seems natural or as my opponent suggests order just exist. I think though as people we seek order alot in our lives. We plan and think about the future always and this appears to be universal intuition.

It is bare pride to suggest that a God who created you for whatever purpose He had in creating you has to do what we want. Do parents do as thier kids ask, maybe in blessing them, but primairly the child listens to the parent. The child must learn to become wise it is just unlogical to think of the opposite. God does not want us to suffer in his will but we do not do God's will so therefore we suffer by choice. Con refuses to understand this. God taught peace and love in one another. So I naturally fell to see how governments and wealthy people allowing millions to starve is God's problem and not ours. Is there food to eat? Yes! Then the real reason these children go hungry is because Men allow it and do not care. I assure my opponent God is coming to rid the world of such hatred and evil along with those who deny him. So my opponent asserts that God needs to help hungry children when it is man who starves them and then blames God for not stopping it. This is just plain crazy talk!

I'm sure that God did know about our evil before hand. But if God went ahead and destroyed all who choose evil before they choose it means He gave them no free will to choose it and justice has failed. We all must decide our path and refuse the path layed ahead. This is man;s decisions and God allows him to make them. I agree God did create us because He wanted us but we chose evil and evil must be cast out and destroyed in its place in time.

I think my opponent provided no good reason why we should put away all prior belief in God. I myself used my personnel experience and those of others to make my stance. As the rules provide no sources. My opponent did give a good arguement and allowed me to express my opinions and also his. So just to go over my points again.

Breif Summary of my points:

1. God has alot of personnel experieces that support His existance.
2. God is outside of scientific and philosophical boundaries.
3. God set and established moral Law for man.
4. It is man's fault for all earthly suffering.
5. Man's moral structure has become hallow.
6. There is a ultimate standard of Goodness.

Thanks to my opponent and all who read. This has been very interesting to view my opponents view. Thanks!

Vote~Pro
Rational_Thinker9119

Con


Refuting My Opponent's Argument

"All I have to do is show reasons why God exist. My opponent says they are not sufficient since I have the burden of proof. Also I'm stumped as to why my opponent claims I offer just bare assertions when in light of the evidence, God seems apparent."

I have refuted and undermined all of my opponent's "evidence" (if we can even call it that). God is not apparent, because if he was then we wouldn't be having this debate. Do you see any debates on whether Oxygen exists? No? It's because that is apparent...

"But I'm not offering one or two experiences. I offering trillions."

In Earths history, around 107,602,707,791 have been born [1] . Are you saying that every person who has ever lived on this planet has had close to 10 religions experiences? This is funny, my mother and father have never had any "religious" experiences, and none of my friends have either (except for my maybe my Muslim friend, who knows). So, the idea that my opponent can offer trillions of cases of religious experiences seems absurd.

"My opponent also wants to assert that aliens do not exist."

This is a straw man, I do believe in Aliens. I just don't believe that they have ever visited Earth and abducted people, big difference.

"In trying to prove your point when you have modern science backing, you choose in bringing up a quote with 'Speculation' and 'Maybe' as its key words is a grave error in my opponents part because it helps my points."

The fact that a "maybe" is even possible debunks your argument. Your argument, is that something cannot come from nothing without a cause, however if it's possible, then obviously something can come from nothing, because if it couldn't, there would be no "maybe". This was my point.

"It is bare pride to suggest that a God who created you for whatever purpose He had in creating you has to do what we want."

I never said he had to do what we want, he just can't be evil because if he is, we aren't talking about an all loving God. If I sit back and watch a rape when I have the power to stop it and I don't, that is evil. If God exists he must be evil, only an evil being would put evil people's free will above the prevention of suffering. However, if he's evil, then he is not God, thus God probably does not exist.

"So my opponent asserts that God needs to help hungry children when it is man who starves them and then blames God for not stopping it. This is just plain crazy talk!"

So if you watch a rape when you have the power to stop it, then you are doing nothing wrong because another man is raping her? This is crazy logic, and pretty embarrassing for my opponent to say the least. God is just as much responsible for anything that goes on as anyone else because he has the power to prevent it, and does not act. If he exists, he is an accomplice to all evil acts.

"I'm sure that God did know about our evil before hand. But if God went ahead and destroyed all who choose evil before they choose it means He gave them no free will to choose it and justice has failed."

So God puts evil people's free will over the prevention of suffering of innocent people is what you are saying?....He sounds like a prick to me, and I'm glad there is no valid evidence for his existence (my opponent definitely did not succeed in demonstrating there is).


1. God has alot of personnel experiences that support His existence.

Personal experience is not evidence of squat, millions of people have reported being abducted by aliens or being possessed by devils. Our world isn't that crazy in reality, all these weird experiences cannot be genuine. It's more likely, that none of these weird experiences indicate anything supernatural because most of these claims can be examined, and these examinations can produce outcomes which indicate brain activity gone wrong.

2. God is outside of scientific and philosophical boundaries.

Oh really, then why are there so many philosophical arguments for his existence?

3. God set and established moral Law for man.

Bare assertion, my opponent never defended this.

4. It is man's fault for all earthly suffering.

If God created us, then it's his fault because he knew suffering would occur, and made us anyway.

5. Man's moral structure has become hallow.

This has nothing to do with God's existence.

6. There is a ultimate standard of Goodness.

I already debunked this claim.

Conclusion

Pro failed to meet his burden, and I met mine in undermining/ falsifying his claims.

Sources

[1] http://www.prb.org...
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
ScottyDouglas
I agree. Came in unprepsred and rushed the cause. My mistake. Will not happen again.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
In short, Pro has failed to meet his two burdens of proof.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
Now, I will analyze con's arguments and his rebuttals.

1. God's existence.

A. The "first cause" argument was debunked. Con rightfully pointed out that there is no warrant to think that the cause is God.

B. Maxmum goodness

C. Personal experience

Con once again points out that this proves nothing as many report experiencing ghosts or alien abductions.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
This case was really easy for con to win. Pro had to prove two things: 1) That the Biblical "god" existed; and 2) That he was morally justified. Let's start with bop 1: The Biblical God exists.

In pro's opening round, he made a ton of errors. He made a lot of bare assertions that were not proveable. In addition, his rebuttals were weak and often straw maned con's position.

1. God exists

To prove this, he used several main aguments: 1) "Nothing is caused by itself"; 2) Maximum goodness; 3) Telelogical argument; and 4) Personal experience argument.

2. God is just

All what he argued is that there is no justice without God and hence he is just.

3. God is morally perfect

Once more, pro did not prove this. All what he said was that God is required for moality.

==Continued==
Posted by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
ScottyDouglas
To comment @rational thinker I had this arguement pretty much prepared before hand from notes from things I read and kept, its not all genuine. So 2nd round full resources. No problem. Bulided a proper defence in any way to be fair. Last 3 rounds I'd prefer like I said a solid defence from a me and you (mind & belief) debate. Thanks for the debate.
Posted by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
ScottyDouglas
Thanks Rational, hope this is a good debate.
Posted by bennourse 4 years ago
bennourse
I'ma move on! It's now cancelled anyhow.
Posted by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
ScottyDouglas
Well accept it then or move on! Con does not have to believe God but does concede God is possible and that Pro believes his is. You must prove he isnt. You cant. Also I grouped slavery, rape, geneocide because it concerns morality. You can use any case of it but it is focusing on the morality of the acts together.
Posted by bennourse 4 years ago
bennourse
No, it also states that the Christian God is true and Con must concede that point, and goes on to say that Genocide/Slavery/Rape is also accepted to be moral when it clearly isn't and we cannot discuss each on its own terms. That alone lowers your burden of proof (the Christian God part). Again, it's biased and if you were making a claim such as this, I'd hope that your convictions would stand up through scrutiny, but they don't, so why claim such a bold statement if you aren't arguing it in its entirety?
Posted by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
ScottyDouglas
No because there are many you can choose from and breaking it down to 5(difficult ones i mite add)provides a real debate about certain contradictions. Otherwise you can bom-bard me with contradictions. I will change the contradictions themselves but not the rules.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
ScottyDouglasRational_Thinker9119Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments in support of God's existence were refuted and not held up well at all. The arguments presented by Pro were either unverified (personal experience), were not shown to defend theism specifically (first cause), or were only asserted. God was never shown to actually exist, whether it is morally justified became a moot issue. I think these should have been debated separately since the second part of the resolution necessarily depends on the first, allowing Con an easier BoP than Pro.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
ScottyDouglasRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Counter KingTyler's vote
Vote Placed by KingTyler18 4 years ago
KingTyler18
ScottyDouglasRational_Thinker9119Tied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Science beats faith. Burden of proof was not met by pro.
Vote Placed by cherrytree 4 years ago
cherrytree
ScottyDouglasRational_Thinker9119Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con effectively countered syllogism and arguments presented by Pro. Pro doesn't meet BOP.
Vote Placed by HonestDiscussioner 4 years ago
HonestDiscussioner
ScottyDouglasRational_Thinker9119Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I would have liked to see more sources in this debate. Spelling and grammar were bad on both sides. Pro did little more than assert that things seemed to suggest God to him personally, but as Con pointed out, gave no actual arguments to support this other than his subjective interpretations. That's not evidence. At least once or twice Pro's arguments worked against him, rather than for him.
Vote Placed by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
ScottyDouglasRational_Thinker9119Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments