The Instigator
IveGotUrOuts
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wallstreetatheist
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

The Christian God exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Wallstreetatheist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,389 times Debate No: 22879
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

IveGotUrOuts

Pro

I will be pro and arguing that the Christian God exists......

My arguments for the existance of God

1.The universe had a beginning
2.The universe is perfectly balanced
3.The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate designer
4.Something can't come from nothing. Since the universe can't cause itself, there must exist the uncreated Creator
5.Jesus Christ

Definition of God: The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority

I will have the burden of proof.......

This is my first debate so if I left anything out of thr norm please add whatever that might be.
Wallstreetatheist

Con

Thanks, Pro. And welcome to DDO!!!!

Next time, state that round one will be for acceptance and that round two commences debate or something of that nature. Just check out some of the other debates on this site for some pointers.

Since Pro has the burden of proof, as he should. I will argue against his case fulfilling my burden of rjoinder via a kritik.

1. -(The universe had a beginning)
2. -(The universe is perfectly balanced)
3. -(The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate designer)
4. -(Something can't come from nothing. Since the universe can't cause itself, there must exist the uncreated Creator)
5. -(Jesus Christ)



Thanks for starting this debate, and good luck in the coming rounds!

-WSA


Debate Round No. 1
IveGotUrOuts

Pro

Thx to my opponent for accepting I look forward to an enlightening debate........

To our audience thank you for taking time to review this debate. I would like to ask you regardless of which side of this topic you are on to review our arguments with an open mind and vote based on the best argument.........

First I need to say I am not claiming that I can prove that God exists with absolute certainty. I am just saying that on balance of evidence theism is more plausible than not.

The origin of the universe..........

The universe had a beginning:

Philosophers, theologians and scientists have debated the question of the origin of the universe for millennia. From the time of the early philosophers this debate has revolved around two questions. 1. Is the universe eternal and therefore uncaused, or did the universe have a beginning in time and space? 2. If the universe did begin at a finite point in time and space, was it created by an outside cause, or did it create itself?

In the twentieth century staggering scientific discoveries have led astronomers to conclude that the universe began at a finite point in time and space and that it is not eternal . To the dismay of many scientific materialists, these discoveries strongly support the notion that the universe was caused to exist by an extra dimensional, transcendent Creator. In 1978, NASA astronomer:

Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated in his book God and the Astronomers : "I am fascinated by some strange developments going on in astronomy partly because of their religious implications and partly because of the peculiar reactions of my colleagues. The essence of the strange developments is that the universe had a beginning–that it began at a certain moment in time....."

Prior to the twentieth century the belief that the universe was eternal was almost unquestioned by astronomers. But as Jastrow points out, this view of an eternal universe has been severely disrupted by "strange developments going on in astronomy" discoveries which Jastrow states carry "religious implications." Belief in God has always required a measure of faith, but this belief is now founded on solid scientific evidence.

The universe is perfectly balanced & Complexity of our planet points to a deliberate designer:

The basic forces of matter and the universe are amazing. There are several basic forces in nature which would destroy the universe or not let it form were it not for the delicate balance within each of them. According to the picture of the evolution of the universe developed by the astronomers and scientists alike, the smallest change in any of the circumstance of the natural work, such as the relative strengths of the forces of nature or the properties of the elementary particles, would have led to a universe in which there could be no life.

1 Gravity: Gravity is the weakest force in the universe yet it is in perfect balance. If gravity were any stronger the smaller stars could not form and if it were any smaller, the bigger stars could not form and no heavy elements could exist.

2 Proton to neutron ratio: A proton is a subatomic particle found in the nucleus of all atoms. It has a positive electric charge that is equal to the negative charge of the electron. A neutron is a subatomic particle that has no electric charge. The mass of the neutron must exceed that of the proton in order for the stable elements to exist. But the neutron can only exceed the mass of the proton by an extremely small amount an amount which is exactly twice the mass of the electron. That critical point of balance is only one part in a thousand. If the ratio of the mass of the proton to neutron were to vary outside of that limit chaos would result.

3 Photon to baryon ratio: A photon is the basic unit of light or other electromagnetic radiant energy, when considered as a discrete particle. The baryon is any subatomic particle whose weight is equal to or greater than that of a proton. This photon to baryon ratio is crucial. If it were much higher than it is, stars and galaxies could not hold together through gravitational attraction.

4 Nuclear force: It is the nuclear force that holds the atoms together. There is a critical level to the nuclear force also. If it were larger, there would be no hydrogen, but only helium and the heavy elements. If it were smaller, there would be only hydrogen, and no heavy elements. Without hydrogen and without heavy elements there could be no life.

Scientists recognize that there is a strong quality running through nature all about us that enables life to exist on our planet. This is called the anthropic principle. It appears that water, atmosphere, chemicals were all perfectly designed for living things to exist and in special sense for mankind to exist.

This is quite obvious to any thinking individual who is willing, without prejudice, to consider the things of nature in our world and outside of it.

There are many examples that I could cite in nature which require the most delicate of balancings in order for the stars, planets, life, and mankind to exist.

Lets consider one more the distance that the moon is from the earth. If it were much closer, it would crash into our planet, if much farther away, it would move off into space. If it were much closer, the tides that the moon causes on the earth would become dangerously larger. Ocean waves would sweep across low-lying sections of the continents. Resultant friction would heat the oceans, destroying the delicate thermal balance needed for life on earth. A more distant moon would reduce tidal action, making the oceans still. Stagnant water would endanger marine life, yet it is that very marine life that produces the oxygen that we breath. Why is the moon so exactly positioned in the sky overhead? Who placed it there? It surely did not rush by randomly, then decide to pause, and carefully enter that balanced orbit.

Something can't come from nothing:

If something popped into being out of nothing it would lack any "causal conditions" whatsoever, efficient or material. If God creates something out of nothing. Then it lacks only a material cause. This is a little hard to conceive but if coming into being without a material cause is absurd, then coming into being with neither a material cause or an efficient cause is twice absurd that is twice as hard to conceive. So it's not open to the non-theist confronted with the beginning of the universe to say that while created out of nothing is impossible a spontaneous origin out of nothing is. If the alternative to God is spontaneous coming into being out of nothing I think we all can agree that’s impossible.

Much more could and should be said about these matters, but I think this is sufficient to show that there is certainly enough evidence to make the belief in God rational.

Jesus Christ:

Jesus is the central figure of Christianity . Most Christian denominations venerate him as God the Son incarnated and believe that he rose from the dead after being crucified. The principal sources of information regarding Jesus are the Bible's four canonical gospels, which most biblical scholars find useful for reconstructing Jesus' life and teachings. Scholars have correlated the New Testament accounts with non-Christian historical records to arrive at an estimated chronology for the major episodes in the life of Jesus.

In later rounds I will explain Jesus in my argument.(out of characters)
Wallstreetatheist

Con

I thank my opponent and would like to point out that since he holds the burden of proof, he not only has to prove that there is a creator deity, but that he is the Judeo-Christian deity.


The universe had a beginning

You haven't brought up anything in this argument that affirms the resolution, but you hinted at it. Once you find "the strange developments going on in astronomy discoveries which Jastrow states carry religious implications" I'd love to hear about it.



"1. Is the universe eternal and therefore uncaused, or did the universe have a beginning in time and space?"
The Universe doesn't require a deity to set it in motion, and may as well be its own cause


"2. If the universe did begin at a finite point in time and space, was it created by an outside cause, or did it create itself?"
More likely itself. Again, you haven't presented any definite argument for a god doing it.

The universe is perfectly balanced & Complexity of our planet points to a deliberate designer
The biggest flaw with this argument is that is simply not true. Secondly, even if it were it wouldn't provide evidence for a god any more than "coincidence" on 9/11 suggest a government conspiracy.

"Gravity is the weakest force in the universe yet it is in perfect balance."
The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate with the four universal forces combined, and will continue to do so until the temperature of everything decreases asymptotically to absolute zero. I wouldn't consider gravity perfectly balanced, because it doesn't account for this ultimate demise of everything, essentially. Gravity can't balance this phenomenon out, and therefore fails to be called perfectly balanced.[2]

"If the ratio of the mass of the proton to neutron were to vary outside of that limit chaos would result."
Actually, what holds the proton and neutron together is the strong nuclear force, because the subatomic particles are made of quarks. Notice how this doesn't suggest a creator or omnipotent deity or provide any evidence for such a claim.

"Photon to baryon ratio"
This is used in Big Bang nucleosynthesis, which runs counter to the biblical account of the beginning. [3]

"Nuclear force"
While this is an interesting scientific phenomenon, it wouldn't have been discovered had Christians and other religious people maintained their anti-scientific attitude prevalent in the 1500's. Furthermore, it doesn't hint at a creator, and you have yet to show a concrete link.

If the universe were truly "perfectly balanced," why would most planet orbits be unstable, star formation is copletely inefficient and fails often, galaxy orbits bring planets close to supernovas, glaxies collide, and the universe expands while it decreases asymptotically to zero? Because it's not perfectly balance, it's not fine-tuned, and there isn't some creator deity or designer who created this, or if he did, he or she is completely inept. [4]

Something can't come from nothing
I don't accept this assumption, which is the first formulation in the argument from first cause (an argument eviscerated so devastatingly that is a wonder people still think it a legitimate intellectual adventure to argue). It would be better formulated as: Either everything has a cause or there's something that doesn't. The first-cause collapses into this hole whichever tack we take. If everything has a cause, then God does, too, and there is no first cause. And if something doesn't have a cause, then it may as well be the physical world. Notice the abject dogmatism when scientists only have theories about the beginning of the universe (e.g. big bang or multiple universe models), but religious people say with absolute conviction that they know how the universe started, and it was this inane desert god who doesn't know how to handle the earth, so he floods it. This cannot be believed by any thinking person. Furthermore, if something can't come from nothing, then you are left with an infinite regression of prime movers, and your argument is left right where you started: holding an empty sack. Even if there were a "prime mover" there isn't any evidence to indicate that it's the Christian god. [5] [6]



Jesus Christ

"The principal sources of information regarding Jesus are the Bible's four canonical gospels, which most biblical scholars find useful for reconstructing Jesus' life and teachings."

The gospels were written 30-80 years after the death of the supposed savior-deity, and rely largely on hear-say and contradictory accounts. Would we consider testimony of events 60 years after they occurred legitimate evidence in a court of law just for common crimes or chracter testimoney? Probably not. But, these contradictory accoutns of the things Jesus supposedly said and did were referring to supernatural events, making the person entertaining the account more suspicious and skeptical. I think we can all agree that just because something is written in a book doesn't make it true. [7]


"Scholars have correlated the New Testament accounts with non-Christian historical records to arrive at an estimated chronology for the major episodes in the life of Jesus."

I would love for some evidence to be proposed; from what I've read, most is fabrication and half-truths. I await any evidence. This contention is really not saying anything meaningful yet, so I await some further developments.


Thanks


[2] http://www.astro.virginia.edu...;
[3] http://astro.berkeley.edu...
[4] Neil DeGrasse Tyson speech "Fine Tuned Universe?"
[5] http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com...
[6] irreligion: A mathematician explains why the arguments for god just don't add up; John Allen Paulos; pp. 3-9
[7] http://www.supernaturalufo.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
IveGotUrOuts

Pro


As I said I am not claiming that I can prove that God exists with absolute certainty. I am just saying that on balance of evidence theism is more plausible than not.



The universe had a beginning:



Jastrow explained "The essence of the strange developments is that the Universe had in some sense a beginning “that it began at a certain moment in time, and under circumstances that seem to make it impossible “not just now “but ever “to find out what force or forces brought the world into being at that moment.... the astronomical evidence proves that the Universe was created twenty billion years ago in a fiery explosion, and in the searing heat of that first moment, all the evidence needed for a scientific study of the cause of the great explosion was melted down and destroyed"........"Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the Universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind‘“ supposedly a very objective mind‘“ when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases."[1]



(1)We know that the universe had a beginning and sole adequate explanation would be an Infinitely Powerful Being or God in the traditional sense of the term.



(2)The universe could not have come from nothing. If the universe had a beginning, there had to be some cause responsible for that beginning.



My OPP stated "The Universe doesn't require a deity to set it in motion, and may as well be its own cause"



Think about it for the universe to have a beginning and for that beginning to have no real cause. That would mean the universe just came out of nowhere an existence without anything bringing its existence about. It went from not existing to existing and this transition was not caused by any existing thing or by any prior event. It just happened. Something came from nothing. This view is absurd. Its absolutely impossible for something to come from nothing. It may seem to come into existence from nothing. The region of space in which something materialized may appear empty to the naked eye. An object composed of matter cannot literally come into existence out of absolutely nothing. The matter that made it up had to come from somewhere. Our minds cannot accept the suggestion that things can pop into existence without any reason. Hence it cant be its own cause. The universe could not have come from nothing. If the universe had a beginning, there had to be some cause responsible for that beginning.



My OPP stated: "The universe is perfectly balanced is simply not true"



Gravity: Richard Feynman explained it best "all matter is a mixture of positive protons and negative electrons which are attracting and repelling with this great force. So perfect is the balance however, that when you stand near someone else you don't feel any force at all. If there were even a little bit of unbalance you would know it. If you were standing at arm's length from someone and each of you had one percent more electrons than protons, the repelling force would be incredible."



My OPP stated:

"Actually, what holds the proton and neutron together is the strong nuclear force.........Notice how this doesn't suggest a creator or omnipotent deity"(It is always nice when you are told that you are wrong when you can prove your right) The protons mass is exactly what it should be in order to provide stability for the entire universe. If it were any less or more, atoms would fly apart or crush together, and everything they are in which is everything would be destroyed. A master Designer planned that the proton's mass would be slightly smaller than that of the neutron. Without that delicate balance the universe would collapse.




My OPP stated: "If the universe were truly "perfectly balanced," why would most planet orbits be unstable"

The centrifugal force tends to sling the planets away from the sun, while the gravitational pull/force of the sun tends to draw the planet toward the sun. When these forces balance, the planet stays in its orbit. Once again I have shown the universe is perfectly balanced which points to intelligent design.



In summary the universe is perfectly balanced you cannot claim that these delicate balances occurred as a result of "natural selection" or "mutations" we are here dealing with the basic properties of matter. The proton to neutron mass ratio is what it has always been what it was since the beginning it has not changed, it never will change. It began just right there was no second chance. The same with all the other factors and balances to be found in elemental matter and physical principles governing it. The best evidence for design can be seen in the nature of the universe and how it came to be.



Something can't come from nothing:



All of matter could not be eternal since material itself is by definition not transcendent and subject to the law of cause and effect. While it is beyond our understanding how transcendence can create immanence, it does not form a logical absurdity. Existence alone requires a logical necessity. All other options I believe are self defeating, formally absurd, and irrational.


http://www.reclaimingthemind.org...





Jesus:

In antiquity the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity. While theological differences existed among early Christians regarding the nature of Jesus these were debates in Christian theology, not about the historical existence of Jesus. Although a very small number of modern scholars argue that Jesus never existed, that view is a distinct minority and most scholars consider theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention as implausible.[2]



My OPP has tried use science to disprove God as many people do but then when science is used to prove Gods existence they say science is tentative anyway. It cannot be both.
Wallstreetatheist

Con

My opponent's arguments are too inane for me to further address. If he brings up some arguments that prove the Christian God exists, I'll be happy to debate him on it.


At this point he isn't even arguing the resolution. He starts off his last round with, "As I said I am not claiming that I can prove that God exists with absolute certainty. I am just saying that on balance of evidence theism is more plausible than not."

1) That isn't what the resolution is concerning. It is concerning the existence of the Christian god, not the possibility that a god is more plausible than not.


2) Even if he indefinitely proved that theism is more plausible than not, he would not have evidence in his favor which would demonstrate that the theistic prime mover was in fact the Christian God.

3) If his arguments aren't centered around the agreed upon resolution and even if argued effectively would leave him without fulfilling his BOP, then it is impossible for him to win.


The universe had a beginning
My opponent does not mention anything that asserts, let alone proves through contention form, that this is the Christian God who was the creator. If he is just use unspecific language like, "infinitely powerful being," of which there are hundreds mentioned in holy books throughout human hstory, then we are left without any evidence or even assertion of a point that would help his side.


"The Universe doesn't require a deity to set it in motion, and may as well be its own cause"
My opponent babbles on about how unlikely it is for the universe to start itself, but fails to place the same skepticism on his own dogmatic claim, the old Bible Belt cop-out: GAWD DIJIT!! hurr hurrr! The point I made still stands, they are both equally likely. If a god comes out of nowhere to make a universe, how is that any more likely than the only things that we can perceive being their own cause. The evidence of the universe is all around us, the evidence for god is either atrocious, hear-say, or nonexistent. So, if you think a supernatural "infinitely powerful being" for which there is no concrete evidence is more likely to originate on its own than the only observable and tangible material known to humans, then you are being incredibly intellectually dishonest or are crudely, proudly, and dogmatically ignorant.


"The universe is perfectly balanced is simply not true"
My opponent convieniently avoids every point of contention I raised with his utopian ideas of god's perfect play house that is so perfect that pitiful exterminations, disaterous explosions, innumerable failures, and unexplained phenomena occur within.... The reason he forfeited these points is the same intellectually dishonest reasons for his dogmatic, irrational assertions spewed forth in the previous "rebuttal," althought I hardly would consider dodging evidence and claiming special privileges to avoid logic a rebuttal. Once again, even if the universe's forces and particles were in perfect balance, that wouldn't mean that a deity willed it into existence. This is a fallacy: Universe is balanced; therefore, god. It is arrogant to believe that the universe was "finely tuned" for a specific species of ape, on a tiny planet, orbiting a tiny star.


A few more objections to this argument:

1) Was there pre-existing material for this creator deity to work with, or did he just will it into existence.
2) Who designed the designer? Why are there so many shooting stars, collapsed suns, failed galaxies, total destruction of unimaginable sweeps of outerspace? Is this some kind of perfectly balanced or fine tuned universe, and if it was created by a creator, then why would he design the universe so ineptly (and that's just in outerspace, not including earth or human bodies)?
3) If the universe is so perfectly balanced as to suggest a benevolent deity, why is the andromeda galaxy headed directly toward us in such a clear-cut case for destruction? Or, what about the sun, when it expands and engulfs earth, boiling our oceans and killing all life here, does that suggest a design, fine tuning, or perfect balance from a Christian god. Absolutely not.

"The protons mass is exactly what it should be in order to provide stability for the entire universe."
Oh, is that why the universe is exapnding at an accelerating rate until the point at which all molecular movement stops? Wow, that's an incredibly "stable" universe. That's basically like the argument the federal reserve gives, stating that one of its two main objectives is price stability when all it does is print money causing constant inflation and thus constant price raises. Also, you didn't assert a Chrisian deity in this, only that, "A master Designer planned" it. Because, remember a master designer would build something for its principle objects of fascination that would have millions of complete extermination certainties. Yeah....

"Without that delicate balance the universe would collapse."
Care to wait around for a dozen billion years to watch your perfectly-balanced universe cease all kinetic movement?


If the universe were truly "perfectly balanced," why would most planet orbits be unstable
"Once again I have shown the universe is perfectly balanced which points to intelligent design."
Your silly little idea of intelligent design didn't stand up as representing reality in court, or in the scientific community, or in most churches due to the "Theistic Evolution" and "Theistic Comsology" ideas that are gaining traction. Intelligent design is not science. Intelligent design is not an accepted scientific theory.

My opponent then continues to talk about the nature of matter without tying any direct links to how this proves the Christian God exists as the resolution states.


Something can't come from nothing
"All of matter could not be eternal since material itself is by definition not transcendent and subject to the law of cause and effect."

Once again, if you apply this law of cause and effect to your OWN ARGUMENTS, then you wouldn't be asserting that god is the first effect from his self-cause...

Jesus
"In antiquity the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity."
I don't deny he was a real human being, because of the manipulation of the story of his birth. However, there is about as much evidence for his existence as that of Socrates.


Also, if Jesus existed that doesn't mean he was the son of god. There is much more evidence for the existence of Muhammad than Jesus, and he claimed to be the final prophet. So does that mean he was? No. Once you have established some evidence on Jesus or metaphysical claims about him, let me know.


He closes with: "My OPP has tried use science to disprove God as many people do but then when science is used to prove Gods existence they say science is tentative anyway. It cannot be both."
I didn't try to use science to disprove god. Remember, you have the burden of proof and I have the burden of rejoinder. If you bring something up, I have to address it. You babbled on incoherently about science without tying any direct links to the Christian God, so I demonstrated why what you said completely failed logically and rhetorically.



Conclusion
My opponent has presented no evidence that demonstrates that the Christian God exists. He merely comments on how awesome the universe is and that Jesus was a human. In all opportunistic spots, he regrets to tie direct links to the resolution, and instead babbles on incoherently. I have upheld by burden of rejoinder, while Pro has yet to have a single argument clearly affirm the resolution. He has provided zero sources for the entirety of the debate and has made zero legitimate arguments. I almost didn't type this debate round out, because my opponent's arguments were so flagrantly oozing with ineptitude, but I realized fighting theists and statists makes the world a better place :D

VOTE CON :D
Debate Round No. 3
IveGotUrOuts

Pro

IveGotUrOuts forfeited this round.
Wallstreetatheist

Con

Voting Issues
1) Seeing as though my opponent has forfeited the previous round, I ask the voters to award me the conduct point as recompense.
2) Also, since my opponent hasn't upheld his burden of proof, I ask to be awarded the arguments points; please read and reread the arguments for yourself to see the holes in my opponent's arguments, how they don't tie into the resolution, and that they aren't Christianity-specific (save the Jesus non-argument).
3) For sources, I have provided many, while my opponent hasn't provided one (his one link goes to a picture). Therefore, I ask to be awarded the sources points. Thanks :D

Conclusion
My opponent has presented no evidence that demonstrates that the Christian God exists. He merely comments on how awesome the universe is and that Jesus was a human. In all opportunistic spots, he regrets to tie direct links to the resolution, and instead babbles on incoherently. I have upheld by burden of rejoinder, while Pro has yet to have a single argument clearly affirm the resolution. He has provided zero sources for the entirety of the debate and has made zero legitimate arguments. I almost didn't type this debate round out, because my opponent's arguments were so flagrantly oozing with ineptitude, but I realized fighting theists and statists makes the world a better place.

More sources:
[1] Christopher Hitchens's speech "Indicting God for Fine Tuning"
[2] http://astro.berkeley.edu...
[3] http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com...
[4] Neil DeGrasse Tyson's speech "Fine Tuned Universe?"
[5] http://www.wnd.com...
[6] irreligion: A mathematician explains why the arguments for god just don't add up; John Allen Paulos; pp. 3-21

Vote Con :D

;
Debate Round No. 4
IveGotUrOuts

Pro

IveGotUrOuts forfeited this round.
Wallstreetatheist

Con

Voting Issues
1) Seeing as though my opponent has forfeited the previous round, I ask the voters to award me the conduct point as recompense.
2) Also, since my opponent hasn't upheld his burden of proof, I ask to be awarded the arguments points; please read and reread the arguments for yourself to see the holes in my opponent's arguments, how they don't tie into the resolution, and that they aren't Christianity-specific (save the Jesus non-argument).
3) For sources, I have provided many, while my opponent hasn't provided one (his one link goes to a picture). Therefore, I ask to be awarded the sources points. Thanks :D

Conclusion
My opponent has presented no evidence that demonstrates that the Christian God exists. He merely comments on how awesome the universe is and that Jesus was a human. In all opportunistic spots, he regrets to tie direct links to the resolution, and instead babbles on incoherently. I have upheld by burden of rejoinder, while Pro has yet to have a single argument clearly affirm the resolution. He has provided zero sources for the entirety of the debate and has made zero legitimate arguments. Fighting theists and statists makes the world a better place.

Vote Con

Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
In how many debates are you currently involved, IveGoturOuts?
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
"The Universe doesn't require a deity to set it in motion, and may as well be its own cause"
My opponent babbles on about how unlikely it is for the universe to start itself, but fails to place the same skepticism on his own dogmatic claim, the old Bible Belt cop-out: GAWD DIJIT!! hurr hurrr! The point I made still stands, they are both equally likely. If a god comes out of nowhere to make a universe, how is that any more likely than the only things that we can perceive being their own cause. The evidence of the universe is all around us, the evidence for god is either atrocious, hear-say, or nonexistent. So, if you think a supernatural "infinitely powerful being" for which there is no concrete evidence is more likely to originate on its own than the only observable and tangible material known to humans, then you are being incredibly intellectually dishonest or are crudely, proudly, and dogmatically ignorant.
Posted by stubs 4 years ago
stubs
"The Universe doesn't require a deity to set it in motion, and may as well be its own cause" In context it seems as though this is reading the universe could have caused the universe into existence.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Ixaax 4 years ago
Ixaax
IveGotUrOutsWallstreetatheistTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Pro kept up pretty well until that point, but with no rebuttal to con's third round, pro loses arguments as well.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
IveGotUrOutsWallstreetatheistTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Meatros 4 years ago
Meatros
IveGotUrOutsWallstreetatheistTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
IveGotUrOutsWallstreetatheistTied
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: Forfeits
Vote Placed by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
IveGotUrOutsWallstreetatheistTied
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: FF