The Instigator
Sketchy
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
shift4101
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

The Judeo-Christian God probably doesn't 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/2/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 970 times Debate No: 18588
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Sketchy

Pro



I'm going to try this one more time...hopefully I won't have any trolls or forfeiters.

By Pro, I am arguing that God probably doesn't exist. For the purposes of this debate, God shall refer to the Judeo-Christian deity.

God - (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) The omnipotent creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority

Exist - To have actual being

Rules:


  • The burden of proof shall be shared.No arguments in the first round.


      • Con must state in Round 1 if God is also omniscient and/or omnibenevolent. If Con doesn't choose, I will assume God is both.


      • Any ad hominem attacks will result in disqualification.


  • You may quote and use the Bible as a source, but I will not accept it as proof.



If you have any questions, or would like me to change the rules in any way, please comment or message me. Thank you!
shift4101

Con

Since I joined this site, I've always wanted to take a debate like this. You don't really seem to exhibit that much knowledge on the subject (No offence, I don't either), so I think this will be a fair but challenging debate.

The Christian God is omniscient, but not omnibenelovent.

Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Sketchy

Pro

Thanks! Good luck to you as well! Instead of posting three long, lengthy arguments, I'll just post three small ones that I feel are fairly solid evidence for God's non-existence.

1.No reliable evidence supporting God.

Simple enough, the only real evidence supporting God is the Bible, which was written thousands of years ago. We shouldn't believe something exists if there is no evidence supporting it. Most adults don't believe that unicorns, fairies, dragons (the fire-breathing, flying ones), or Santa Claus exists, so why do we give extra consideration to God?

2.The Bible's moral values are questionable at best.

The bible advocates cutting off hands, killing simply because someone didn't want to get their brother's wife pregnant, stoning teenagers to death, killing someone who is working on a Sunday, killing homosexuals, slaughtering infants, owning and beating slaves, men owning their wives, hating life, and stoning liars to death. The Bible is outdated? "the word of our God will stand for ever." (1)

3.Praying doesn't work.

"Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened…" – Matthew 7:7
Go ahead and try. Pray and ask for cancer to be cured overnight. I guarantee it won't work. If it doesn't it either means that you are evil, or God doesn't exist.

I apologize for the extremely short length, but I have been very busy this week. I eagerly await your response!

1: Deut 25:11-12, Genesis 38:8-10, Deut 21:18-21, Ex 35:2, Lev 20:13, Isaiah 13:13-16,Exodus 21:20-21,1 Tim 2:11-12, Col 3:22-23, Luke 14:26, Deut 22:13-21, Isaiah 40:8
shift4101

Con

I thank my opponent for replying! I hope to shed some insight on the problems he has presented.

1.No reliable evidence supporting God.


Simple enough, the only real evidence supporting God is the Bible, which was written thousands of years ago. We shouldn't believe something exists if there is no evidence supporting it. Most adults don't believe that unicorns, fairies, dragons (the fire-breathing, flying ones), or Santa Claus exists, so why do we give extra consideration to God?

To the contrary. Almost all conclusions start with observations. Which conclusion gets generally accepted is usually based on philosophical ideas, most notably Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor states that "Which ever answer is the simplest answer is most likely right, so as long certain criteria are met." However, the very definition of science revolves around an atheistic world view, or at least nothing is changing or manipulating our universe. Therefore, whatever conclusions that could be reached with the conclusion "God did it." can be thrown at and chuckled at by many members of the scientific community, regardless if that conclusion is more probable or not.

Another way to look at my opponents argument might conclude that "Because nothing directly points to God, we should not consider his existence." However, there are arguments such as the Cosmological argument, Ontological argument, Teleological argument, and Transcendental argument [1][2][3][4] all point to the existence of a creator, which the most likely candidate is the Christian God.

2.The Bible's moral values are questionable at best.

The bible advocates cutting off hands, killing simply because someone didn't want to get their brother's wife pregnant, stoning teenagers to death, killing someone who is working on a Sunday, killing homosexuals, slaughtering infants, owning and beating slaves, men owning their wives, hating life, and stoning liars to death. The Bible is outdated? "the word of our God will stand for ever." (1)

This is a straw man argument. Although I desire to argue my point on this subject, I feel as if my opponent will send down an endless amount of verses demonstrating cruelty in the bible. Regardless, this does nothing to prove that God is less likely to exist, or at least demonstrates my opponent has withheld his insight from the voters and I.

3.Praying doesn't work.

"Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened…" – Matthew 7:7
Go ahead and try. Pray and ask for cancer to be cured overnight. I guarantee it won't work. If it doesn't it either means that you are evil, or God doesn't exist.

This is also a straw man, but I will dance with it for the time being because of the conclusion PRO has made.

My opponent is demonstrating a rather impatient attitude towards God. For God to truly give you what you desire, you must possess 3 criteria:

1. You have to be patient with God.
2. You have to have total faith in God.
3. Your desires have to be beneficial towards your or other peoples faith in God.

Most (if any) people do not fill these 3 criteria. Thus, any desires you have that God does do for you, he does because he is gracious and desires you to be happy with him.

My arguments

Previously I have listed 4 philosophical arguments for the existence of God, which include:

The Cosmological Argument [1]

[1] Everything that began to exist has a cause
[2] The universe began to exist
[3] Therefore, the universe has a cause

Why does this point to God? Because science and observations are restricted to the physical universe. Implying that there were conditions present before the universe began is more of an assumption than the existence of God. So by using Occam's Razor, we can deduce that since the existence of God is a simpler (having less assumptions) claim than pre-universe conditions, the existence of God is more probable.

The Ontological Argument [2]

[1] If an omnipotent being is possible, then that being exists in some possible world.
[2] An omnipotent being is also omniscient.
[3] An omniscient being exists in every possible world.
[4] Therefore, an omnipotent God exists in our world.

This in itself points to a creator.

The Teleological Argument [3]

This is the argument of fine tuning. The character length restricts me from putting all of the arguments on this page, so I rather point my opponent to this link for a general example of arguments for fine tuning: http://www.godandscience.org...

I do not expect or require my opponent to refute any or all of these factors, but rather allow him to explain how they are irrelevant in the great debate of God.

If my opponent refuses to use a link as an argument in itself, he can skip this argument altogether.

The Transcendental Argument [4]

[1] Laws of nature exist
[2] The Laws of nature have not always existed
[3] Nowhere in the universe hold codes for the Laws of nature
[4] Thus, something created the Laws of nature.

This in itself points to a creator.

Conclusion

I have removed the validity of my opponents arguments and have posted my own that I expect to defend until this debates conclusion. Until my opponent posts his refutations, I must urge voters to lean towards a CON vote at this point.

+++++

[1] http://www.gotquestions.org...

[2] http://www.gotquestions.org...

[3] http://www.gotquestions.org...

[4] http://www.gotquestions.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Sketchy

Pro

Sketchy forfeited this round.
shift4101

Con

Arguments extended
Debate Round No. 3
Sketchy

Pro

Sketchy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by shift4101 5 years ago
shift4101
I mean vote Con X.x
Posted by Kinesis 5 years ago
Kinesis
I could take this, but I'm not happy about having to prove the Christian God exists in one debate. There are all kinds of characteristics the Christian God is purported to have, and proving all the main ones in just one debates seems impossible.
Posted by Sketchy 5 years ago
Sketchy
Why is it so hard to format correctly on this website...>.<
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by kkjnay 5 years ago
kkjnay
Sketchyshift4101Tied
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:43 
Reasons for voting decision: "Any ad hominem attacks will result in disqualification."-Pro "You don't really seem to exhibit that much knowledge on the subject "-Con Pro did forfeit the last two rounds though... Con didn't actually disprove Pro's argument or present any viable arguments.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Sketchyshift4101Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.