The Instigator
TheSkeptic
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
eddietastic
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points

The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/7/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 666 times Debate No: 5674
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

TheSkeptic

Con

Hello, after days of boredom I decided to start this debate.

Basically, my opponent will present 2 ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD that he/she deems as valid and effective, while it will be up to me to try to disprove them accordingly.

By "God", I will define it as the Judeo-Christian God, found in the three Abrahamic religions. This is to allow debates involving archaeological/historical means.

My opponent will simply list down the title of the arguments, with perhaps a brief explanation of each, in their 1st Round. From Round 2 - 4, I will refute each argument and my opponent will defend them accordingly.

Hopefully both of us will get something out of this ;D
eddietastic

Pro

being the strange person i am i have decided that i might as well take a stab at this argument even though it will be a slightly awkward one to argue

1. historical proof
the many things throughout history that have been documented cannot all be true, many of the things which happened to the human race cannot be explained scientifically. for example we can take the basis of the christian and catholic faith which is that jesus was in fact a miracle worker. jesus was obviously someone who is different than other people because of his ability to do many things which were thought to be impossible. if there is not a god would it be possible for jesus to heal people...blind, crippled, deaf, and raise people from the dead. furthermore, he had power over objects...created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature...walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. if these feats were done with one or two people watching then i do not believe it could be considered a fact or a real event but these feats were done in front of thousands and thousands of people. are we to just say that the fact that these people were all lying and conveniently made up the same story at the exact same time. many of the facts that were documented through time showed that there was in fact a greater god who looked over the christian people and helped them throughout the ordeals. for example when the jews escaped from egypt they were able to survive what we would think is impossible even today. they were either helped by their god or they were just really really impossibly lucky. furthermore, i dont think that the timing for the miracles which happened could be that precise, i mean for the red sea to split just as moses raised his staff, and when food to come when he raised his staff, these odds are close to impossible. another reason why history shows that there is obviously a god is the fact that jesus was resurrected, this shows that the god who jesus believed in exists or he would be dead. lastly the ages of moses and abraham could not be true without a god since they lived longer than many of the people today, at the count abraham and moses both lived over 200 years old.

2.the world is too perfect
he Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.existence of GodThe Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.

Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life: It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees. proof of GodWater is a universal solvent. This property of water means that thousands of chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.
therefore this res god exists must and will stand
hope you have fun with this one its quite interesting reading about the different beliefs
Debate Round No. 1
TheSkeptic

Con

~Counterarguments~

1. Historical proof

--> My opponent's main contention is that Jesus performed miracles, with hundreds of people as witnesses. They wouldn't have lied all so conveniently. However, this "argument from fanaticism" ,if you will, fails. In modern history, we have many examples of people who believed in the divinity of some other individual, and went to extremes.

Heaven's Gate: Coinciding with the appearance with the Comet Hale-Bopp in 1997, 38 followers committed suicide as was instructed by their two leaders, Marshall Applewhite and Bonnie Nettles. The members were actually convinced of the supposed divinity of the leaders, and genuinely beleived that an alien ship was behind the Comet. They believed if they committed suicide, they would aboard the alien ship. Even the leaders themselves beleived in this group delusion. Do we believe that the cult was correct in their belief? Of course not, we would call them irrational fanatics.

Sathya Sai Baba: With around 6 million followers, and being a self-professed "Godman", Sathya Sai Baba is STILL living to this day. His followers have accounted his miracles that include: levitation, bilocation, physical disappearances, changing granite into sugar candy, changing water into another drink, changing water into gasoline, producing objects on demand, changing the color of his gown into a different color while wearing it, multiplying food, healings, visions, dreams, making different fruits appear on any tree hanging from actual stems, controlling the weather, physically transforming into various deities and physically emitting brilliant light. [1] Do you honestly believe he is capable of this, simply because millions of people believe in him?

--> There is absolutely no proof of the Israelite entering Egypt as slaves. 600,000 fighting men, equivalent to 2.5 million men, women and children, or two thirds of the Egyptian population at the time, would be a massive and noteworthy thing to take down, especially when the Egyptians are noted to be meticulous in their records. [1]

The life expectancy according to the bible of the Israelite would be around 130 years, while historically for the Egyptians it would be 50 years. Yet no records of this, even when the Egyptians were noted for wanting to know the secret to eternal youth.

--> Your other accounts of the miracles of Moses and such are unwarranted claims, as is the other ones you have made. Simply because the Bible says it was so, doesn't mean anything. You should very know how the process of historians work. You need other sources, primary sources at least. Until then, it's a circular argument to say that the Bible is divine because in it were divine miracles.

2. Fine-Tuning

--> There is simply too many examples you gave, and tediously refuting each one won't be possible since I have character limits restricting me. However, there is one flaw amongst everything you have stated in this argument. Granted that the earth is fine-tuned, it does not identify the creator, nor does it identify if the creator is divine. It may very well be aliens from a superior civilization who made us; or a god of some other religion.

~Conclusion~

Your arguments fail in foundational reasons. The first argument is at most a circular one, and the argument from fanatics fails when shown that stuff like this always happens. The second argument is a gigantic false dichotomy and argument from ignorance. Just because we don't know fully how the atmosphere evolved (though we do we have plausible scenarios) it doesn't warrant a god. And even so, you fail to reason why it must be either natural means, or Jesus Christ and not some other cause, like an alien or Allah.

---References---
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://www.jesusneverexisted.com...
eddietastic

Pro

eddietastic forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
TheSkeptic

Con

Extend my arguments to this round.
eddietastic

Pro

eddietastic forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
Once again, obvious CON win is Obvious.

You cannot forfeit two of three rounds and win the debate. Especially if your opponent makes counter-arguments.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
"However, there is one flaw amongst everything you have stated in this argument. Granted that the earth is fine-tuned, it does not identify the creator, nor does it identify if the creator is divine. It may very well be aliens from a superior civilization who made us; or a god of some other religion."

Not even that - 99% of known species are extinct. Life needs to fine tune itself to the requirements of its survival, not, the Earth is fine tuned for the survival of life.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
MY APOLOGIES.

I made two references to link 1, when in actuality the second "number 1 link" is actually referring to my second link. Sorry for the mess-up.
Posted by Wayne 8 years ago
Wayne
i hope i'll learn something from this debate =]
Posted by eddietastic 8 years ago
eddietastic
rationality ???? srry i dont have any :P
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
Haha well sometimes I come across an interesting argument, one I haven't heard before such as the argument from abstract concepts (a laughable one). That's why I even debate on this site, to learn.

But there are some great debaters here who are religious, so I would expect at least a portion of rationality into their acceptance of said religion.
Posted by gusgusthegreat 8 years ago
gusgusthegreat
Oh, I have. But they can never actually prove a point. Especially since the Bible and other such religious texts tend to be a major source of info, as well as metaphysics, and other unprovable tangents to science.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
Then you apparently have never heard of Christian apologetics.
Posted by gusgusthegreat 8 years ago
gusgusthegreat
Seeing as how it is generally accepted that religion is based on faith and science on proof and facts, I really don't see how this debate could possibly be won from the affirmative standpoint. Debates need proof and sources in order to present valid arguments. Since this is essentially impossible for the affirmative, I don't see why anyone would accept this challenge.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
TheSkepticeddietasticTied
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 
Vote Placed by eddietastic 8 years ago
eddietastic
TheSkepticeddietasticTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
TheSkepticeddietasticTied
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 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
TheSkepticeddietasticTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70