The Instigator
Torvald
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points
The Contender
ifaust
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Existence of God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Torvald
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/3/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 947 times Debate No: 26869
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

Torvald

Con

Since my opponent, ifaust, has displayed marked interest in debating this topic with me, by commenting passionately on my debates of this topic, I now invite him to have the debate he has sort of requested. He can defend his beliefs in God as strenuously as he likes. I will, of course, take the Con, and dispute the existence of God. The burden of proof is on the Pro. Very good luck to you, sir!
ifaust

Pro

First of all, I am not a man. Back to God.
I believe in God because I know He is real and I can feel His presence. The proofs for God, are all around us. We all are not just a body, but we are a person who consists of 3 parts: Body, soul, and spirit. We Christians can "Feel the presence of God" which is part of that discernment of the spirit. If there is spirit in us then there must be the spiritual world, which is eternity because spirit is the energy that cannot be destroyed, it will exist forever and ever. Body is only a shell for us to live on this earth, once the spirit left the body, the body will just rot away to dust again, for it was made from dust, thus come back also to dust.

The bible said spirit was the breath of God, where we were all created in His image, that we are all bestowed with knowledge and creativity to create things on earth. This is another proof how wonderfully God has created us human being.

Evidence for God :
While absolute proof of the existence of God cannot be realized by any human being, the great weight of evidence, when rationally evaluated, clearly balances the scales heavily in favor of God. We can demonstrate "beyond a reasonable doubt" that "He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6).
Debate Round No. 1
Torvald

Con

I thank my opponent for joining this debate, and ask that since he has consented to participate, he henceforth refrain from posting arguments in the comment section of debates in which he is not a debater.

My Opponent's Belief
It is fine (I shall not say 'good,' for I personally believe that it is unhealthy) that you have personal beliefs, indeed strong personal beliefs in a deity. However, you cannot use your personal beliefs as evidence in a debate. Since there are few other underlying concepts to your case, I shall make a point-by-point analysis of your first, then second, paragraph. For the sake of saving space (though it may be unnecessary), I may not quote entire sentences.

"The proofs for God, are all around us."
This may be plain to you, but the burden of proof is still on you, and still unsatisfied, for the audience and I have yet to see an example of the proof which is allegedly all around us.

"We all are not just a body, but we are a person who consists of 3 parts..."
I sincerely hope that this is not your proof of God. If it is, then this debate just spiraled rapidly down into a very deep and rocky ravine with no shoes. This is yet another totally unfounded statement. To my knowledge, all evidence points indefatigably toward only one of these three components of which you speak: the body [1]. I don't know of any evidence for a soul or spirit. Enlighten me, please.

"We Christians can 'Feel the presence of God' which is part..."
I think there is a medication for that... [2]

"If there is spirit in us then..."
Actually, all energy is the 'energy that cannot be destroyed.' The first law of thermodynamics states that the energy of an isolated system is constant, meaning that energy is never destroyed, only transferred [3],[4]. I would not, however, call this concrete evidence for the 'spiritual world.'

"Body is only a shell..."
I would love to see some documentation of this--it sounds a little interesting. By dust, I believe you are referring to inert carbon and mineral deposits. If not, please elaborate. If so, elaborate anyway; you've got plenty of characters to do so.

"The bible said spirit was the breath of God..."
The Bible also says that daylight is not produced by stars, and that long hair bestows insatiable strength. I would not consider the Bible the most reliable source of information.

"This is another proof how wonderfully God has created us human being."
You have yet to provide one piece of evidence, let alone proof.

Evidence for God
I agree with you absolutely; absolute proof of the existence of God cannot be realized by humans. I disagree, however, that the great weight of evidence, when rationally evaluated, clearly tips the scales toward God, and you certainly haven't been very helpful in changing my mind. To the contrary, all evidence of which I know suggests that the existence of God is a myth. Since we're quoting scriptures, allow me to quote one: "He that hath his privy member cut off shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord." Deuteronomy 23:1 [5].

I now turn the floor over to my opponent; good luck!

Sources:
[1] Life: The Science of Biology
[2] http://jnnp.bmj.com...
[3] http://www.britannica.com...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] The Holy Bible: King James Version
ifaust

Pro

I strongly disagree with you 100%. God is real. Without God, you wouldnt be living right now. You wouldnt be here WHAT SO EVER if God didn't exist. I wouldn't even be arguing with you right now, if God didn't create you. If God wasn't real. How do you think we live our lives. You atheist. The first recorded question in all the Bible was asked by the Adversary in Genesis 3:1 where he asked simply, "Yea, hath God said...?" His purpose was to cast doubt upon God"s words. Today the same adversary continues to cast doubt upon God"s Word, but through more sophisticated means and through human agents. In modern times he has raised up "scholars" and theologians who "interpret" God's Word in pedantic nomenclature. Every trade or profession invents a vocabulary to set it apart from other trades and professions. Doctors, lawyers, scientists and, yes, modern-day Pharisees invent words that shut out "outsiders," who must then come to them and pay exorbitant fees and years of time to learn their trade to be accepted into that field. After all, it is reasoned, if a Biblical "scholar" uses terminology like hypostasis, the hypostatic union of Christ, or the hypostatic theory of the nature of God, he must be "exceedingly godly and knowledgeable" and one is immediately placed at a psychological disadvantage and is often hard pressed to cope. The natural reaction is to just throw up one"s hands in confusion and reason that such scholarship is too far above him and to close one"s mind down and blindly accept whatever such "scholars" spoon feed them. Hence the phrase, "Just smile and check your brain in at the door."

And yet 2 Cor. 11:3 cautions us, "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." Do we believe what God says about Himself" or do we have to go the egg-spurts?

There is a large body of the Church of God that has recently completely altered its view of the nature of God. In the May 3, 1994, Worldwide News, page 4, in the article entitled "Clearing the Picture About Humans Being Made in God"s Image," (emphasis mine throughout.) it is asked, "What does it mean to be made in God"s image? The question is not easy to answer because the Bible does not define the nature of God"s image." Well, my Bible does! They go on to say that "This view does not suggest that God has human form, but only that we individually are a bodily representation of a bodiless God." Read that again! Are we to believe that such gibberish is "scholarly"?

Under the subheading of Appearances, Anthromorphisms (a typical jawbreaker catchword to impress others of their supposed superior intelligence) they ask, "Now what about the appearances of God in the Bible? And what about the many references to God"s face, eyes, eyelids, nostrils, mouth, voice, arms, hair, hands, palm, fingers, feet heart, bosom and bowels? Are they proof that God has bodily form?" To which they blasphemously answer their own question, "NO!" and affirm that such manifestations of God should not be taken literally, but metaphorically, allegorically, or symbolically. Anything but literally! Any literal descriptions of God are spiritualized away. They go on to say in column four that what Moses saw in Exodus33:19-23 was not God, but a physical manifestation of God. Who are we to believe? What does the Bible say?
Debate Round No. 2
Torvald

Con

Point by point, once more, shall we?

"I strongly disagree..."
Good, that's the point of the debate, though I think you're missing the other point, which is that it isn't just a "Yes," "No" argument. Also, you probably don't actually disagree 100%.

"Without God..." "You wouldnt be here..."
You have yet to establish that, and repeating it won't make it true. I could say that "Without evolution, you wouldn't be here right now," and I would be able to back it up with volume and volumes of well-verified supportive documentation.

"If God wasn't real."
If God wasn't real what? This is a fragment. It is an incomplete idea. You could win at the Incomplete Idea Bee, but this is not that.

"How do you think..."
I don't actually know enough about cerebral biochemistry to tell you exactly how I think that we live our lives, but suffice it to say that I think we do so...very carefully.

"You atheist."
There you go again! If you're trying to huff and puff to blow my house down, it isn't working. If you're trying to insult or discredit me by stating my religious affiliation in disjointed grammar, that isn't working either.

"The first recorded question..."
Who is the Adversary? He sounds interesting--he who asks the first question in a work of literature is usually the culprit (if it's a mystery of detective novel). Either that or it's the character who gets killed first. I do like a good detective novel.

"His purpose was to..."
Sounds to me more like his purpose was to ask a question. Personally, if I were to ask "Yea, hath God said...?" I would be asking, well, what God hath said.

"Today the same adversary..."
Ooh, human agents. Okay, so now it sounds like you're describing some celestial 007 movie.

"In modern times..."
This seems to me as no more than an excuse to not go to school.

"Every trade or profession..." "Doctors, lawyers, scientists and..."
Okay, you've now totally lost me. Please explain every word you just said, especially the ones in these two sentences.

"After all, it is..."
I don't know about you, but when I hear or read "Hypostatic" or "Hypostasis," if I don't know what it means, I just look it up in the dictionary, rather than being placed at a psychological disadvantage.

"The natural reaction is to just throw..."
You must have some very peculiar natural reactions, because when I hear something that I don't recognize, my natural reaction is curiosity, not nausea...

"Hence the phrase..."
I don't believe I'm familiar with that phrase. How is it relevant to God's existence?

"And yet..."
I thought we'd talked about using the Bible as a source. It isn't reliable. Not at all. Sorry, very far away and no cigar.

"Do we believe..."
Personally, when I read a book that talks about the supernatural, and all kinds of other things that are rationally implausible, I don't think "Well, it says it's true, so it must be true." If I did that, I would have founded the First Church of Iluvatar (based on the works of J.R.R. Tolkien) long ago. Furthermore, your 'egg-spurts' study their subjects for decades, dedicate their lives to their work, and are usually fairly reliable. It's what happens, when one does not neglect one's education.

"There is a large..."
Cool story bro.

"In the May..."
Another cool story. Well, not super cool. More like mediocre bordering on excessively boring.

"Well, my..."
You wrote a Bible? That's kind of neat.

"They go on..."
Man, you are full of these mediocre-bordering-on-excessively-boring stories!

"Read that again!"
I read it again, still mediocre bordering on excessively boring.

"Are we to believe..."
I don't really know what 'we' are to believe, but I personally don't believe the Church, as a corporate body of any religion, is particularly scholarly in any sense of the word. Also, I don't really see what problem you could have with that gibberish, since you seem to be doggedly defending the Bible.

"Under the subheading..."
Well, actually, I don't really think of 'anthropomorphisms' as a 'jaw breaker,' and don't really have any trouble with it. If you have trouble understanding it, here is a good tool: http://dictionary.reference.com...

"To which they..."
There there, there's no reason to become overly emotional.

"Anything but..."
Whatever you say, I personally kind of like literalism.

"Any literal descriptions..."
This is helping your case in what ways, might I inquire?

"They go on..."
The story hasn't gotten any more cool. In fact, it has stopped bordering excessively boring, and jumped in headfirst.

"Who are we to believe?"
I think we should believe the people that dedicate their entire lives to making observations, then making logical connections and such. And the ones that have moustaches, I'm a sucker for moustaches.

"What does the Bible say?"
The Bible says that children who defy their elders are to be beaten to death, that the writer of Psalms had syphilis, and that women who wear pants are an abomination in the sight of God. I'm still not seeing a clearly defined point in your argument, and this is now Round 3. You make a cute preface, but hadn't you better start making a point soon?

Since I'd like to let you catch up, you know, for a fighting chance, I think I'll write a haiku.

My opponent is
Ifaust, a peculiar
And rude, blue window.

By the way, this is my favorite poem:

Here lie I,
Dionysius of Tarsus.
Lived full sixty years and never married,
Would that my father hadn't.

I also like bananas, bananas are good.
ifaust

Pro

ifaust forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Torvald

Con

How rotten! Ah, well, since you haven't been online in so long (compared to the duration of your debate, at least), I'll assume you've been unavoidably detained, and ask that the voters take into account that my opponent's forfeit should be disregarded, as he seems to have had no opportunity to make his argument.

This is one of my favorite poems:

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore—
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door—
"'Tis some visitor," I muttered, "tapping at my chamber door—
Only this and nothing more."

Ah, distinctly I remember it was in the bleak December;
And each separate dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor.
Eagerly I wished the morrow;—vainly I had sought to borrow
From my books surcease of sorrow—sorrow for the lost Lenore—
For the rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name Lenore—
Nameless here for evermore.

And the silken, sad, uncertain rustling of each purple curtain
Thrilled me—filled me with fantastic terrors never felt before;
So that now, to still the beating of my heart, I stood repeating,
"'Tis some visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door—
Some late visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door;—
This it is and nothing more."

Presently my soul grew stronger; hesitating then no longer,
"Sir," said I, "or Madam, truly your forgiveness I implore;
But the fact is I was napping, and so gently you came rapping,
And so faintly you came tapping, tapping at my chamber door,
That I scarce was sure I heard you"—here I opened wide the door;—
Darkness there and nothing more.

Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there wondering, fearing,
Doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before;
But the silence was unbroken, and the stillness gave no token,
And the only word there spoken was the whispered word, "Lenore?"
This I whispered, and an echo murmured back the word, "Lenore!"—
Merely this and nothing more.

Back into the chamber turning, all my soul within me burning,
Soon again I heard a tapping somewhat louder than before.
"Surely," said I, "surely that is something at my window lattice;
Let me see, then, what thereat is, and this mystery explore—
Let my heart be still a moment and this mystery explore;—
'Tis the wind and nothing more!"

Open here I flung the shutter, when, with many a flirt and flutter,
In there stepped a stately Raven of the saintly days of yore;
Not the least obeisance made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he;
But, with mien of lord or lady, perched above my chamber door—
Perched upon a bust of Pallas just above my chamber door—
Perched, and sat, and nothing more.

Then this ebony bird beguiling my sad fancy into smiling,
By the grave and stern decorum of the countenance it wore,
"Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou," I said, "art sure no craven,
Ghastly grim and ancient Raven wandering from the Nightly shore—
Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!"
Quoth the Raven "Nevermore."

Much I marvelled this ungainly fowl to hear discourse so plainly,
Though its answer little meaning—little relevancy bore;
For we cannot help agreeing that no living human being
Ever yet was blest with seeing bird above his chamber door—
Bird or beast upon the sculptured bust above his chamber door,
With such name as "Nevermore."

But the Raven, sitting lonely on the placid bust, spoke only
That one word, as if his soul in that one word he did outpour.
Nothing further then he uttered—not a feather then he fluttered—
Till I scarcely more than muttered "Other friends have flown before—
On the morrow he will leave me, as my hopes have flown before."
Then the bird said "Nevermore."

Startled at the stillness broken by reply so aptly spoken,
"Doubtless," said I, "what it utters is its only stock and store
Caught from some unhappy master whom unmerciful Disaster
Followed fast and followed faster till his songs one burden bore—
Till the dirges of his Hope that melancholy burden bore
Of 'Never—nevermore.'"

But the Raven still beguiling my sad fancy into smiling,
Straight I wheeled a cushioned seat in front of bird, and bust and door;
Then, upon the velvet sinking, I betook myself to linking
Fancy unto fancy, thinking what this ominous bird of yore—
What this grim, ungainly, ghastly, gaunt and ominous bird of yore
Meant in croaking "Nevermore."

This I sat engaged in guessing, but no syllable expressing
To the fowl whose fiery eyes now burned into my bosom's core;
This and more I sat divining, with my head at ease reclining
On the cushion's velvet lining that the lamp-light gloated o'er,
But whose velvet violet lining with the lamp-light gloating o'er,
She shall press, ah, nevermore!

Then, methought, the air grew denser, perfumed from an unseen censer
Swung by Seraphim whose foot-falls tinkled on the tufted floor.
"Wretch," I cried, "thy God hath lent thee—by these angels he hath sent thee
Respite—respite and nepenthe, from thy memories of Lenore;
Quaff, oh quaff this kind nepenthe and forget this lost Lenore!"
Quoth the Raven "Nevermore."

"Prophet!" said I, "thing of evil!—prophet still, if bird or devil!—
Whether Tempter sent, or whether tempest tossed thee here ashore,
Desolate yet all undaunted, on this desert land enchanted—
On this home by Horror haunted—tell me truly, I implore—
Is there—is there balm in Gilead?—tell me—tell me, I implore!"
Quoth the Raven "Nevermore."

"Prophet!" said I, "thing of evil—prophet still, if bird or devil!
By that Heaven that bends above us—by that God we both adore—
Tell this soul with sorrow laden if, within the distant Aidenn,
It shall clasp a sainted maiden whom the angels name Lenore—
Clasp a rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name Lenore."
Quoth the Raven "Nevermore."

"Be that word our sign in parting, bird or fiend!" I shrieked, upstarting—
"Get thee back into the tempest and the Night's Plutonian shore!
Leave no black plume as a token of that lie thy soul hath spoken!
Leave my loneliness unbroken!—quit the bust above my door!
Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door!"
Quoth the Raven "Nevermore."

And the Raven, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting
On the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door;
And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming,
And the lamp-light o'er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor;
And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor
Shall be lifted—nevermore!

Sources:
The Raven, Edgar Allen Poe
ifaust

Pro

ifaust forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Torvald

Con

There's a sad sort of clanging from the clock in the hall
And the bells in the steeple too
And up in the nursery an absurd little bird
Is popping out to say "cuckoo"
Cuckoo, cuckoo

Regretfully they tell us Cuckoo, cuckoo
But firmly they compel us Cuckoo, cuckoo
To say goodbye . . .
Cuckoo!
. . . to you

So long, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, good night

I hate to go and leave this pretty sight

So long, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, adieu

Adieu, adieu, to yieu and yieu and yieu

So long, farewell, au revoir, auf wiedersehen
I'd like to stay and taste my first champagne

So long, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, goodbye
I leave and heave a sigh and say goodbye -- Goodbye!
I'm glad to go, I cannot tell a lie
I flit, I float, I fleetly flee, I fly
The sun has gone to bed and so must I

So long, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, goodbye
Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye

Goodbye!

ifaust

Pro

ifaust forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
Oh yes, just so that there is no question of plagiarism, the final round argument is a quotation of the Sound of Music, by Rogers and Hammerstein.
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
I'm telling you, Pro, you won't do anybody any good by forfeiting. Really, please don't forfeit.
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
Pro, please do not go forfeiting...
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
TorvaldifaustTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Pro. UPDATE: Changing my vote because of my mistake in voting for Pro when I was actually going to vote for Con.
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
TorvaldifaustTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: part to counter clash mistake vote. Pro is not always on the left side. The most irritating thi g on DDO is to put effort into a debate and watch it go to waste. Pity.
Vote Placed by ThomasJefferson 4 years ago
ThomasJefferson
TorvaldifaustTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited.
Vote Placed by TigerTime 4 years ago
TigerTime
TorvaldifaustTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
TorvaldifaustTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments/Conduct to Con for Pro's unfortunate forfeiture.