The Instigator
AlternativeDavid
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Thelastword
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The God of Abraham Does Not Exist

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 2 votes the winner is...
AlternativeDavid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/13/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 558 times Debate No: 60400
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

AlternativeDavid

Pro

Rules:

Round 1: Acceptance.
Round 2/3/4: Arguments and rebuttals.
Round 5: Closing statements. No new arguments/evidence.

Failure to adhere to these rules results in a loss of conduct points.

I argue that the God of Abraham (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity) is not real.

I look forward to a good debate.
Thelastword

Con

So if god doesn't exist and considering the conservation of mass how would the big bang even take place?Now I'm not saying in the absence of knowledge to play the god card, yet to propose the fact that god can't be proven nor disproved until we die. Also saying that god can not be seen, felt,smelled, or heard disproves him isn't an argument. I can feel emotions, does that mean they aren't real? Sum up, I'm saying we'll never know.
Debate Round No. 1
AlternativeDavid

Pro

Con has broken the rule set for round one by giving an argument. My list of rules stated that round one was for acceptance only. Round two is the first round for arguments. Con has lost the point for conduct.

Due to the fact that Con has already presented an argument, I will use round two to respond to his claims.

First Con states that "if god doesn't exist and considering the conservation of mass how would the big bang even take place?"

He then follows up by claiming "I'm not saying in the absence of knowledge to play the god card."

This is a contradiction because Con first questions how the Big Bang could have happened without God, and then follows by claiming that he is not using a god of the gaps argument.


Con asserts that "god can't be proven nor disproved until we die."

He soon contradicts himself by stating that "we'll never know."

Will we never know? Or will we find out when we die?


I shall disregard Con's statement about emotions as it makes no sense. Possibly due to a typo.



I'm going to return to Con's first sentence.

"Considering the conservation of mass how would the big bang even take place?"

Humans don't know... Yet.


3,000 years ago science couldn't have told us how the tide works, nor could it tell us the chemical composition of the Sun. 20,000 years ago, nobody knew the weight of the earth or the size of the moon.

We've made so much progress since the dawn of civilization, we can't assume that just because we don't know something yet that we'll never know it.

Georges Lemaître first suggested the Big Bang theory in the 1920s [1]. That is less than 100 years ago. We'll have plenty of time to learn new things about the origin of the universe. In march of 2014, Harvard astronomers found the first direct evidence of cosmic inflation right after the Big Bang. [2].


"I'm saying we'll never know."

Never is a word I seldom use. Con's entire argument is based off of this idea that we'll never know. However, how can we know that we'll never know? By introducing this argument Con has created a paradox that I expect him to get himself out of. Good luck to Con.


[1] http://science.nationalgeographic.com...
[2] http://gizmodo.com...;
Thelastword

Con

Thelastword forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
AlternativeDavid

Pro

I extend all arguments as my opponent has not refuted any of my claims.
Thelastword

Con

Thelastword forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
AlternativeDavid

Pro

I extend all arguments
Thelastword

Con

Thelastword forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
AlternativeDavid

Pro

I extend all arguments. Vote Pro.
Thelastword

Con

Thelastword forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by AlternativeDavid 3 years ago
AlternativeDavid
That statement is false because man bear pig actually lives OUTSIDE of the universe and therefore cannot be disproven.
Posted by roark555 3 years ago
roark555
Wrong David! In another universe it was the man bear pig!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
AlternativeDavidThelastwordTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by The_Gatherer 3 years ago
The_Gatherer
AlternativeDavidThelastwordTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con broke the rules of the debate in the first round. Pro presented a much better and more logical case. Con then forfeited all subsequent rounds.