The Christian God exists (2)
Debate Rounds (4)
This is a debate about whether or not the Christian god exists. I will be refuting arguments from my opponent, who will have the burden of proving that the Christian god is real.
Rounds 1-4 are all for claims, rebuttals, and counter-rebuttals.
Since I would not be able to refute my opponent's fourth-round claims, I request that they write "no round" in the fourth round of the debate.
You can use any type of evidence, or you could simply use logic and reasoning to make your arguments.
I await my opponent's arguments.
Now when you talk about proof, what sort of proof would you like? CCTV pictures, Him coming to shake your hand, or interfering in worldly affairs. I hope not. You won't get it. Now with that said, as we discussed the other day, you therefore have in your mind conceived an idea of what God should be like in your mind, if you were God if you like. All those wonderful attributes and moral goodness etc. You haven't pictured Him, like a spaghetti monster, well I hope not! but you have conceived of what His attributes could be like or in your human mind what they should be like. So far so good?
Ok, there are 3 types of people in this universe, I'll think you'll agree.
Atheists - they deny the existence of it, but conceive it's there. Else, what's to deny? Ref biology professor No 1.
You even have a conception of it, but you want to deny it, for human reasons and it get's in the way somewhat. So you fight it. The big mistake in an atheist's outward denial of it, is that it proves the existence of it unfortunately, if you are perceptive.
Agnostics - they conceive it's there, but not sure if they can accept it as fact, a weak but safe middle ground they think, as did I. I"m a good person really, it"ll be alright in the end. That's ok, they would probably make up a large proportion of people on the planet. Hence my reasoning for objective morals the other day. They may discuss the concept, sure. They're undecided in their minds to believe it. They want may be a little proof, a little miracle may be, something for sure.
Theists - they conceive of it and are positively sure it's there, and can therefore prove it by this very same argument. If we are all conceiving of the same thing or entity, it must therefore necessarily exist. Are we ALL delusional. No.
The big danger in making bold statements, such as I know it doesn't exist, proves that you thought about it already, thereby proving its very existence. It's been discussed throughout the centuries. Were all those people mad? No.
So, the deity necessarily exists. Is it the Christian God? Mmm let's think about that.
We have a book written over the space of may be 1,500 to 2,000 years, detailing the life of a certain race of people, including the very essence of creation and the beginnings. Through God this book was written, unless you think everyone at that time was deluded also in claiming the existence of God. And some very powerful writing it was too. It's an historical story that has way too much provenance to suggest other than it's more than likely very true.
It has been the most discussed, widely read, researched and criticised book in all of history. Do you think people again would spend so much time doing that, if it wasn't at least credible and therefore more than likely true? I would reason not. Why would it create so much debate otherwise? We don't debate Greek gods and mythology and ask, can that be true? No, so that is my main reason. I can add more in the next round. I just wanted you to think a little.
Yes, it takes faith sure, no one can have 100% proof of anything. I'm willing to take that chance and believe it to be true.
Hey bigtown, it's good to be debating with you again.
I'd like to ask that if you do reference our other debate (http://www.debate.org...) or points brought up in it, you provide a quote. This is for those people who did not read our other debate and for clarification about what specific points we're talking about.
I'll try to avoid Bible passages, but no promises.
"Now when you talk about proof, what sort of proof would you like? CCTV pictures, Him coming to shake your hand, or interfering in worldly affairs."
Yeah, any of those would be definite proof. I'd probably accept god if any of those things happened.
"Now with that said, as we discussed the other day, you therefore have in your mind conceived an idea of what God should be like in your mind, if you were God if you like. All those wonderful attributes and moral goodness etc. You haven't pictured Him, like a spaghetti monster, well I hope not! but you have conceived of what His attributes could be like or in your human mind what they should be like. So far so good?"
Well, I guess. I do know most of the attributes of the god you claim to exist and most of his actions through the Bible, and I wouldn't call him "wonderful" or "morally good" at all, but I do have a perception of what the god you support would be like if he actually existed. I have an idea of what a perfect god might be like as well. I have many ideas about many fictional things and people.
"Ok, there are 3 types of people in this universe, I'll think you'll agree."
No, I don't agree that there are only three types of religious philosophies. I believe that there are two beliefs on each end of a spectrum with a whole host of other different people and descriptions of them in the middle of these two. The two on the ends are anti-theists, such as myself, and radical theists. Middle positions include agnostic atheists, agnostic theists, and "silent" theists and atheists. There are many, many middle positions, but the center-most one is agnosticism.
"Atheists - they deny the existence of it, but conceive it's there. Else, what's to deny? Ref biology professor No 1.
You even have a conception of it, but you want to deny it, for human reasons and it get's in the way somewhat. So you fight it. The big mistake in an atheist's outward denial of it, is that it proves the existence of it unfortunately, if you are perceptive."
I agree with the first part, we do live our lives as though no god exists. We also have a conception of the god you are proposing. However, this does not prove the existence of a god (I will expound upon this later), and we deny it because we've realized there's no evidence to support it. Technically all atheists are agnostic, but we've decided to live our lives as though there were no god (his existence is a near impossibility in our view)
"Agnostics - they conceive it's there, but not sure if they can accept it as fact, a weak but safe middle ground they think, as did I. I"m a good person really, it"ll be alright in the end. That's ok, they would probably make up a large proportion of people on the planet. Hence my reasoning for objective morals the other day. They may discuss the concept, sure. They're undecided in their minds to believe it. They want may be a little proof, a little miracle may be, something for sure."
Actually, everyone on the planet is an atheist and agnostic towards the flying spaghetti monster. Agnostics believe that nothing is known or can be known about the nature or existence of the metaphysical world or god.
"Theists - they conceive of it and are positively sure it's there, and can therefore prove it by this very same argument. If we are all conceiving of the same thing or entity, it must therefore necessarily exist. Are we ALL delusional. No."
This is why theism is the only group that doesn't really make much sense. Many of them claim to know for a fact that god is real, which you won't hear from any other group. Just because you make a claim does not mean you can prove it. I claim, as of now, that I can fly and shoot lasers out of my eyes. Can I prove that? "No, because you don't really believe that" (that is my own refutation, I am not straw manning you). Well, if I really, honestly believe that I have an imaginary friend, can I prove that to anyone? Just because everyone has the same notion of the general characteristics of a fictional character does not mean it exists. Everyone knows most of Harry Potter's character traits, so must he exist? Also, just because a belief is popular doesn't make it right. Most people believed in slavery at one point; are they all delusional?
"The big danger in making bold statements, such as I know it doesn't exist, proves that you thought about it already, thereby proving its very existence. It's been discussed throughout the centuries. Were all those people mad? No."
No atheist makes the claim that they know god doesn't exist. God is an unfalsefiable hypothesis; you can't prove for sure that he doesn't exist. Also, how does thinking about something prove its existence? I've just thought about flying bananas, Harry Potter, and Odin. Do they all exist now? Not everyone discussing the existence of god was insane. I believe that theists make claims they cannot back up with evidence, not that they're insane. Also, serious, widespread debate about religion has not been happening for centuries. Maybe the last couple of decades, but atheists were killed back in the day (and still are in Islamic countries might I add), which didn't lead to much discussion about religion.
"So, the deity necessarily exists. Is it the Christian God? Mmm let's think about that."
No it doesn't.
"We have a book written over the space of may be 1,500 to 2,000 years, detailing the life of a certain race of people, including the very essence of creation and the beginnings. Through God this book was written, unless you think everyone at that time was deluded also in claiming the existence of God. And some very powerful writing it was too. It's an historical story that has way too much provenance to suggest other than it's more than likely very true."
Is it not possible that the people who wrote this book made this up, or were trying to spread some weird, cultish beliefs? How good the writing was doesn't have an affect on how real it is. Aesop's Fables were pretty inspiring and powerful. So was the Narnia series. Could you describe such provenance? I disagree that it is a historical story, I'd say it's historical fiction.
"It has been the most discussed, widely read, researched and criticised book in all of history. Do you think people again would spend so much time doing that, if it wasn't at least credible and therefore more than likely true? I would reason not. Why would it create so much debate otherwise? We don't debate Greek gods and mythology and ask, can that be true? No, so that is my main reason. I can add more in the next round. I just wanted you to think a little."
People do these things because they either were brainwashed at birth to believe such fairy tales, want a sense of security and shelter from harsh, cold reality, or don't believe in the book and call it out because so many people believe in its divinity and that belief is negatively impacting society. We don't debate Greek mythology because nobody believes it, so we don't have to refute the claims that Zeus is supreme because there are none. If people believed in Zeus, we'd show them how illogical that belief is, but they already agree with us, so there's no need to debate them.
1. I said you would not get it, it's not on the table. If that happened it would be over already. Which is why the metaphysical entity I call God, cannot be seen in the physical realm. I look within myself, through logic and observation of the physical realm to find it. It's very difficult this, trust me. I don't read the Bible and hey presto believe, the doubt in your mind makes you question it. Through logic and understanding, I know for sure it's there, I just proved it to myself by this method.
2. Again you have made the mistake of comparing yourself to Him and coming up better. I know where this is heading. Get something straight. You read oft quoted passages in the Bible. You think, hey that's not fair that can't be right. Because you think 4,000 years ago human behaviour in general was like today's behaviour. All nice and comfortable with your laptop and iphone and pc games and apply this moral landscape to that time. Do you know what they did to people and children in those days? Sacrificed children to their gods on a regular basis, rape and murder and human sacrifice on a large scale. Human life was unbearable for most. Do you know what God did and why? You read leviticus and apply it today. It was a different moral landscape, therefore He gave people rules and regulations to start making a change in humanity. He could not bear to see so much human waste. He directed a people to believe in Him and follow Him, the Bible. Atheists twist and contort these things and not give you the context behind it. I accept it, but I think we came much further than we might have if it were not for the Bible. You may not have even been born if it was allowed to continue the way it was, trust me. So thank Him for your life you have now, so you can criticise Him in comfort. Would you like to have been sacrificed to strange gods? I don't think so.
Perfect God? Mmm maybe like you, you mean?
3. So 3 then, you are agreed. There can't be any more. Stop fooling yourself. I see you have to include radical for some reason, radical for you, but you are a self-declared irrational atheist. I think I know what I would like to call myself. Thanks
4. Ok, agreed definition. You have denied the possibility and therefore set yourself against the very thing that could help you. Ok, if you want that. Short term comfort position. There's nothing else.
If you, in a next life, had the opportunity to learn everything, absolutely everything about the physical world and God and how He did it, would you accept God now in this life? Just wondered. Or are you happy with this life only?
5. Straw man again, you invoked him, eat your pasta with a dollop of straw! :-) Any that's where your wrong because you haven't been taught that you have the very tools within you to find Him. What's logic? What's mathematics? Do you honestly think these are different things for different people at any one time? NO They are absolutes, the very source of order in this universe, you don't use them, you will never find Him. You refuse to want to find Him. Now that's illogical.
6. Straw man again. You automatically assert He is fictional, how can get anywhere with that starting point. Go back to the middle and start searching your mind and use your intelligence. No, this is not about popular belief and traditions and customs, it's the very nature of being human.
7. Supremely unfalsifiable. You know why? He's the source of all order in the Universe. He cannot do the impossible, but only the deluded human being think they can. It's so elegant and beautiful. Deny logic and you deny God.
8. Oh yes it does. you know why? You are proving it to me right now. Uh? How's that? Those invocations of imaginary characters in your mind to deceive you into not really looking too hard. Not today, not tomorrow, but may be a little later. It takes years. Those barriers to throw up when thinking about it just hurts a little bit too much. That's all. I know your logic. Ask for the big questions in your life, don't dismiss them else you won't even get close.
9. Ok, do you know the story? Follow it, it's man's history from the start. Weird cultish beliefs? Ok, how many Christians in the first 3 centuries were slaughtered for their belief in the book? They did not lay down their lives for a fairy tale, come on.
Would you make up a lie and then die for it with nothing to gain? There's a real message there, read it and ask yourself? Persecuted and slaughtered, for their belief in a lie that they made up? What did they gain by doing that? It's ridiculous. No serious historian would ever doubt the existence of a man called Jesus. There's more non biblical references to Him than any other person at that time. Do not be deceived by some other writers works. They mostly are based on spiritualists writings from the 19th century. The Bible is the most critically researched historical document ever. What evidence do you have for it being fiction? Prove it to me.
10. I wasn't brainwashed, I found my own way thank you. 30 years that took. So your claim is bold, but very fallacious. The genetic fallacy, logic fail, not a good argument. You parrot others without understanding the logic to deceive yourself into thinking why you shouldn't believe. You look down on them, when you should be looking up to them, and thinking why do they believe? There must be something in it?
No Bible necessary. Because that is not a good starting point in any discussion on this topic. Good luck and await your comments. A few nice diversionary tactics I hope. It's a good one again.
The pastaman? I don't understand. Thanks? Maybe? I don't know what's going on here!
I'll just start my rebuttal.
1) Why would god choose to hide himself like this? Wouldn't it be easier for him to give solid physical evidence of himself? Then there would be no atheists like me. You have yet to show me this logic and understanding.
2) No, I think that this book can't be the word of god because the morality in the book is from what ancient civilizations considered moral. If god was this objective moral giver and the truth and knew everything, wouldn't his morals condemn slavery and discrimination? If god were to intervene with humanity to set them on the right path, wouldn't he say that being gay is okay, just so that people didn't get the wrong idea when he says that being gay is not okay and start to stone homosexuals? I don't believe I am perfect.
The context behind Leviticus, if I understand it correctly, is that God is giving these rules to Aaron, his descendants, and the sons of Israel through Moses. I won't put any quotes or citations because you've asked me not to, but if I am wrong please explain to me where I've gone astray in my interpretation.
3) No, there can be more. It is as I described. However I don't really feel this is critical to the argument, so I'll drop that point for now. I did not at any point call you or insinuate that you are a radical theist, and you can call yourself whatever you'd like.
4) Ok, we agree.
Hypo: If I were to accept god in this life and be guarenteed to a life with infinite knowledge later, yes, I would take that deal.
5) Ok, first the straw man thing. If I am misrepresenting your position when I say that everyone is agnostic/atheist towards the flying spaghetti monster, then does that mean you believe in his noodly appendages? All jokes aside, I believe that mathematics, logic, physics, etc. are absolutes in the physical universe.
6) I said many theists, not specifically you. Not a straw man. I in fact even explain how I am not straw manning you. I assume he is fictional because I've already done this whole "devote your life to Jesus" thing when I was a young boy, and I truly believed that god existed. However, nobody has given me any valid evidence that shows me he exists, so I assume he is fictional. You need to start searching your mind or Harry will never accept you. If you don't open your heart to his noodly appendages, they cannot grace you. It does have to do with the popularity of the belief as you said, " If we are all conceiving of the same thing or entity, it must therefore necessarily exist. Are we ALL delusional. No." That is an argument from popularity.
7) I'm not denying logic. God is an unfalsefiable hypothesis because nobody can know how this universe was created. It could have been god, it could have been the big bang, it could have been the flying spaghetti monster for all we know.
8) I extend my Harry Potter example and would like to say that many people, such as Sagey (http://www.debate.org...) have studied theology for many years and "thought about it" for years and arrived at the same conclusion as I.
9) How many atheists were slaughtered for simply looking at the world and saying "there is no god"? They didn't lay down their lives for nothing. They laid down their lives for what they believed, just as the Christians did. THis, however, does not make their beliefs any more valid. Hitler died for what he believed, so does that make him and all the other Nazis who died for these beliefs right? I don't know how this lie was made up, but it was passed along as truth and eventually got to people's heads. I'd doubt his existence. I think if you do some research you'll find that there are no references to Jesus until decades after his supposed death and resurrection. Don't you think there would be some people writing about this guy going around healing the sick, raising the dead, etc.? You have the BoP.
10) Good for you. Most people are born into religious families and really are brainwashed into their family's religion. I also give other reasons why someone would go into a religion. Who am I parroting? I have given reasons why people believe. You seem to have logically worked out that god is real somehow, though, based on what you've said earlier. Call that a straw man if you'd like.
Okay, no bible then. At least for this round.
Thanks for your arguments, sorry I was a bit late with mine.
Firstly, I just wanted to maybe straighten a couple of things out. Now, for many centuries, believe me, of considered philosophy and debate on the subject of the Origins and meaning of life, there really has been only 2 positions to take on the subject. Theism was really the default position for many reasons and much discussion on the whys and hows and meaning of creation and life etc. So it is a considered subject. All I'm saying is, do not dismiss this as pure hocus pocus. Remember logic and philosophy were the backbone of debate among some of the greatest thinkers of our time. I do not think we compare in the slightest to these men. So, were they deluded in some way for discussing God or gods. No, that's for sure. So when the subject arises, it does seem very silly to invoke images of pasta etc for such a serious topic. That is not your fault I know. You have almost been bullied into that position and you do not realise it, so I can accept it from you as you're a smart person, but a little too dismissive of the greatest philosophical topics that have kept many great men occupied for centuries. Who made us? Who made this? Why are we here? Do we have a purpose in life? If so, what is that purpose? You may have asked yourself these questions or you may have dismissed them because when you entered society, it almost seemed silly to ask. Your life's questions were answered if you like. But when you get a little older and observe the world, you start to doubt even your own position, that's when these questions come back to you. It's not a silly topic but quite a serious one, as indeed it is your life.
By the way, I'm glad you answered yes to the hypo question. It shows the honesty in you. Thank you.
So in effect, if I can somehow prove it to you, you may have some time to think and question yourself, which is good. The more you question, the more you learn. Learning is not sitting in a class absorbing data and facts, although that is important of course for you to make a living doing something. But self-learning and questioning yourself are all still important too. The game's not over until it's over. It's called lifelong learning, but you do all the work, and then happiness for you, contentment, and assuredness. Things go wrong, you get back up and carry on. He's a loving God.
Yeah proof of the physical entity you won't get. God in essence is an immaterial entity, He created and set the whole universe in motion. At creation time space and matter came into existence at the same time, I believe Einstein even proved this. Yes? that great scientist, read what he had to say. You can say well, who created God, but you cannot have an infinite regress of causes like that. That is faith, and I believe it. He is in reality a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, changeless but personal entity. Personal, because He chose to create this universe and us in it. So, if you want proof of Him, you really do need to look around you and observe the world. Even the most skeptic atheists cannot help but wonder at the magnificence of it all, but deep down push it away in their minds. This world and its wonders are the proof of His existence. Read how finely tuned the universe is, men cannot help to see the utmost design of it. Think about logical and mathematical absolutes, these transcend space and time, we are all as humans aware and ultimately designed to think the same way. What would happen if I said 1 plus 1 was 3, and you said no it's 2. Mathematics are absolutes, logic to build order within our own personal thinking, those tools everyone has, so we can reach proper and the same conclusions if we follow the same rules. This is why I said logic was a tool to avoid deception in your life. Why this, why that, upside down and inside out and move forward. This actually was my last proof needed that such an entity existed. I thought how supreme and magnificent was that? Then you get lockdown in your mind and know it's real.
The Bible, as I said, yes is quite confusing to read and keep your belief. Ok, if you can imagine a group of people living a few thousand years ago. These people had not been given any guidance on how to live their lives. Sin had already entered the world from the start. Humanity is in tatters with all sorts of evil things being done. God needed to give some guidance to save that humanity. It pained Him to see the evils of men. They did not know how to conduct themselves so they could start to make a change to save the human race. So, from the descendants of Noah right through to Moses, he started to give some rules. There were rules for conduct of the adminstration or leaders (civil laws if you like) of those people and there were God's Laws, the Ten commandments, so everyone could be reminded that they were made by God and should therefore worship Him respectfully. They had religious laws for temple ceremonies where sins could be forgiven and for worship on the Sabbath. Now when we read the OT books, they seem awfully harsh in this day and age, don't they? Slavery and stonings etc, but in comparison to other tribes of men they were actually very lenient for that time. When the OT mentions slavery by the way, it is actually employment in a sense. If you were destitute, there was no social security remember, you could offer yourself to someone so that they may house and feed you in return for work. It generally was for a time of 7 years, when you were free to leave that household. Many 'slaves' if you like would decide to not leave, and there were intermarriages between families and 'slaves' So it's not what you envisage slavery to be. It was strictly forbidden to take somebody or kidnap them to work for nothing. Also, the rules were there for sorting out disagreements. It's doesn't been they were getting beaten daily and life was so miserable. Many didn't want to leave their 'master's' employment. I'm not saying things didn't happen, you will always get a bad one, so the laws were there to make sure there was some kind of good treatment in those cases. Slaves were also free to leave in those situations also. Sometimes women were 'sold' into a family to repay a debt. That's not buying and selling of slaves as you and I would envisage. God is not a cruel God, but he knows men are. The moral objective still in all men is really 'do no harm', but God knows we need reminding of it. About the homosexuality aspect. It's always difficult. Ok, God loves everyone equally I assure you, but He hates to see men destroy themselves through this activity of sleeping with other men. He loves them and mankind, but the sin aspect He sees as destructive to a human and society in some ways. I know you won't see it as you are young. We were created male and female and when you marry man and woman become one person. That's how it was supposed to be. That's why marriage was always reserved for a man and a woman, so they could become one entity under God's love. Yes love is a part of it, but M/F couples grow together and have children and live in a family and it creates a solid base for society. Roles are shared and children grow in a loving relationship. It works well most of the time. Now back to OT. Homosexuality was very much more deviant in those times, even the Greeks would engage in pederasty and what we would call paedophilia today. Yes, you bet. Would you like to be a 12/13 year old or younger boy being abused by a grown man. NO It was always associated not with love but with power, Fems and Doms, Doms and boys etc. Not a great way to behave. He hates to see that. If there were some harsh judgements made, I bet they were made for good purposes. You see Westboro guys as a fringe group baiting gays, and think, well all Christians are like that. NO. I've had tried very hard to speak with gay men about religion, as I know God loves everybody. Remember, do no harm. You are not here to judge, but to help if you can. We don't like to see it, because God in essence has reminded us of the damage it can do. Do you think NAMBLA a good organisation? NO See fringe opposites, beat up the Christian side, let the pederasts off with it. Slightly biased, yes? If you read something with no context behind it, you will judge incorrectly and again deceive yourself. Read 'Is God a Moral Monter' online to get some background. Read both sides then decide, normal, rational thinking. They do it court don't they? Why can't you?
As I said, absolutes are not physical entities, how can they be? They were the same 4000 years ago and they will be the same 4000 years in the future. You think they're your physical brain,but they're your mind. The place where you reason and judge things, in your conscience that you can't see, but know instinctly everyone has one. That's not physical it is where your concept of God resides,if you want to know Him.
Yes, religion can be a put off I'm sure. I don't go to church by the way, honestly. I worship Him in my mind and heart, and love Him more everyday. When you see the world and the evil persists, that's men, not religion doing that. Churches with strange doctrine I want to avoid really.
Lastly, did those people make up a lie for no reason and die for it? All the disciples crucified or stoned, Jesus' brother killed for it. Do you know how historians work today? Things are not written about for 20 or 30 years after the events. Don't be confused with daily news, it didn't exist.
Ok, people go into it, but do they really believe? That's different. But don't use it as genetic fallacy
I'm always thinking. Thanks for making this effort, bigtown. I believe that making an effort to sort these things out is never a bad idea.
Yes, this is a considered subject, but I believe my arguments hold weight, and using pastafarianism, Harry Potter, etc. as counter-examples is effective, as it hammers home my points. I'm not trying to take this lightly, but I'm a pretty easygoing guy and I really can't help one or two jokes every now and again. Trust me, I have thought very seriously on this for a very long time (well, for a fifteen year old anyways). Changing from a die hard theist into an anti-theist is not something that happens overnight.
You're welcome. I am not against god and am open to the idea of becoming a theist, I just have yet to see any valid evidence for the position.
Okay, I'll continue to question myself and my beliefs.
Einstein was a great scientist, but I believe he held the wrong views on religion. However, I don't blame him because at the time atheism was viewed as evil and there was a general societal consensus that theism was correct, as there was for many years. Old habits die hard. Yes, the world is such a wonderful place, but I believe that it came about through naturalistic processes. That doesn't make it any less wonderful for me. Just because the world looks fine-tuned for life does not mean it is. I think I've already addressed the logic and mathematics thing.
Most of the first part of the bible paragraph was "times were different back then, and god was giving rules to help get humanity back on track". Wouldn't god just giving humanity a concrete set of laws that couldn't be misinterpreted a better idea than writing this whole book through tons of people and then sending it down to earth? To address the second part, homosexuality is not morally bad. I take a very mainstream view in this and agree with all of the points being made by people who have no objections to gay marriage, and I stand by those points. I don't think pedophilia is correct because of consent issues. I don't see any mainstream Christian as a Westboro Baptist Church type person, and I've certainly never seen you as that type. I don't have time at the moment to read 200+ page book, but I'll try to get to it.
Well, I still think these absolutes are part of physical processes. My position on that is in my debate on objective morality with bigtown, which I linked to earlier.
I've already addressed the last point.
I'd like to remind bigtown that he must write "no round" for this round.
I don't think he's fulfilled his BoP, but the reader can decide that.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Apologies if I missed something, but I didn't see Pro give a SINGLE argument in favor of God's existence... all he did was describe his own religious beliefs and say something about how atheists cannot prove that there is certainly no God, which is not what Con was claiming in this debate, anyways... Also, Pro, it's STRAW MAN, not "pasta man" XD
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.