The Instigator
datApologistTho
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

The God of the Bible exists and everybody knows

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...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 755 times Debate No: 56331
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

datApologistTho

Pro

I am arguing for the Christian God from a reformed view. I am not a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon or some "just believe off a whim" Christian. The Christian God exists and the Christian worldview is the only worldview that makes sense out morality, logic, truth, human reasoning, science, etc. I will be arguing mostly through a presuppositional methodology of apologetics even though there is abundant evidence in history and other fields. The Bible says that every person knows God but suppresses the truth about Him out of our sinful nature. I expose that people do know God when they make knowledge claims about things that they cannot account for with Him.
Debate Round No. 1
datApologistTho

Pro

datApologistTho forfeited this round.
Mikal

Con

giving my adversary a chance to re spawn
Debate Round No. 2
datApologistTho

Pro

datApologistTho forfeited this round.
Mikal

Con

The lack of necessity for a God negates the need for one. The resolution is

Resolution - The God of the Bible exists and everybody knows

Possibility - The fact or state of being possible.

Possible - Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.

For something to be possible it must have the chance to be true without contradicting empirical facts. The fact that a higher power exists is possible but not proven. There is no empirical evidence to show that it does . Most people can only logically assume that a higher power does not exist. This does not mean that it is true or not true, but it does means that there is a high probability that a higher power may not exist. So we can acknowledge that a higher power could exist, because there is no way to show that a higher power existing is contradicting proven facts or empirical evidence.

My adversary has to prove beyond doubt that a higher power exists with empirical evidence. He has done accomplished this so his BOP is not upheld.

C1) The universe can create itself

We now know with modern science the universe can create itself, and the process of evolution is a fact. We no longer need a God in order to explain why we exist, which negates the need for a God

C2) Not everyone knows he exists

This is abundantly obvious with some tribes never hearing the gospel in their life before they die.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Solipsism can be refuted, by shared, confirmed, consistent experiences. Which is Science.
Belief that only one's personal experience, self can be known is to believe only in the illusion of self.
Since self is an illusion only and not a reality.
Many Self experiences that match identically in form and context can be considered as a group reality.
If that group reality is also experienced by ever other self in the same situation, it can be considered as a form of reality.
We all experience solid objects, that is our shared self experience of solid objects, to our perspective/experience they are solid, even though realistically, no such thing as a completely solid object exists apart from black holes.
Everything we experienced by our self to be solid is over 90% space.
If it was truly solid, it's gravity would pull us into it and we would become part of it.
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
I hate Sye Ten. Vs Matt Dilahunty he just presupposed gods existence, and dismissed all the claims because Matt admitted he can't refute Solipsism, which no one can.
Posted by SuperHans 2 years ago
SuperHans
Science, human reason, logic and truth all disagree with the christian religon and religion itself. You cant argue god exists with no physical proof.
Posted by Jjjohn 2 years ago
Jjjohn
I hope that Pro's arguments are not just reworded Sye Ten Bruggencate's claims without proof.
Posted by UlteriorMotive 2 years ago
UlteriorMotive
I am arguing for the Flying Spaghetti Monster from a reformed view. I am not a pirate or some "just believe off a whim" Pastafarian. The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists and the Pastafarian worldview is the only worldview that makes sense out morality, logic, truth, reasoning, science, etc. I will be arguing even though there is abundant evidence in history and other fields. The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster states that every person knows the FSM but suppresses the truth about Him through our sinful nature. I expose that people do know the FSM when they make knowledge claims about things that they cannot account for with Him.
Posted by Bible13 2 years ago
Bible13
I am sorry, and I agree with Pro that the God of the Bible exists, but there is just no way you will win this debate. Mikal will make you try to prove that he believes in God, and just by simply denying he does he has proven you wrong. Don't even bother, this is how he debates: http://www.debate.org...
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
datApologistThoMikalTied
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 & Uncontested arguments.
Vote Placed by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
datApologistThoMikalTied
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: Conduct for forfeiture, and argumentation because Mikal's the only one who gave a coherent argument.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
datApologistThoMikalTied
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: Conduct for the forfeits. Arguments for the unrebutted case. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
datApologistThoMikalTied
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: What, Con pulled out, couldn't take the heat from Con?? Just acceptance was too strong an argument for Pro to handle. Conduct to Con for FF and argument as well??
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
datApologistThoMikalTied
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