The Instigator
Eccedustin
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
m93samman
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

The Muslim God's existence is as unlikely as Zeus or Thor

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
m93samman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,642 times Debate No: 13980
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (35)
Votes (5)

 

Eccedustin

Pro

m93samman suggested that he would accept my debate, the debate tiled "The Christian God's existence is as unlikely as Zeus or Thor". However someone else had accepted it. So, I am challenging him directly.

My argument is the same:

My argument is that the God of Judaism and Christianity, and Islam (Yahweh or Elohim or Allah) is as unlikely (or as likely) as any of the commonly accepted mythological gods of antiquity, such as Zeus or Thor or Odin. I am NOT arguing against the existence of a historical Jesus of Nazareth, however. I AM arguing about the God of the Jews, Christians and Muslims described in the Old and New testament and the Quran and the "Father" or perhaps "Holy spirit" aspect of the divinity in Christianity.

I contend that there is zero scientific or historical evidence for the existence of Yahweh. I also contend that there is no reasonable reason to believe in the existence of Allah or Yahweh, over that of Zeus or Thor.

We all consider the mythological Gods of antiquity such as Zeus and Thor and Odin to be just that, mythological beings that do not exist. I argue that we should also, by the same exact logic, see Yahweh or Allah as mythological and non-existent being on par with Thor or Odin or Zeus.
m93samman

Con

I thank my opponent to this debate, but am confused about the 2,000 character limit. 'Tis the holiday season, though; let us all be jolly.

I'll define terms, then arguments can begin in round 2.

Allah- Muslim name for the one and only God

Zeus- (Greek mythology) the supreme god of ancient Greek mythology; son of Rhea and Cronus whom he dethroned; husband and brother of Hera; brother of Poseidon and Hades; father of many gods; counterpart of Roman Jupiter

Thor- (Scandinavian mythology) the god of thunder, rain, and farming, represented as riding a chariot drawn by goats and wielding the hammer Mjolnir: the defender of the Aesir, destined to kill and be killed by the Midgard Serpent

Mythology- myths collectively; the body of stories associated with a culture or institution or person

(all terms were defined by typing on google.com)

With that, I'll send the debate over to Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
Eccedustin

Pro

Apologies, In my first few debates I had overestimated the amount that we could type with just 2,000 characters. In future debates I will make it larger.

I agree with all of your definitions.

All of the statements that I made in the O.P. stand. You can address those first.
m93samman

Con

Thank you.

For this debate, note that definitions are going to be essential.

In Scandinavian and Greek mythology, we take into account two issues. First, the people fabricated stories in the sense of fairy tales in an attempt to bring about entertainment through oral tradition while establishing *some* sort of understanding of divinity. In monotheistic religions, the case is far different.

=====> LIKELIHOOD <=====

Mythology is far outdated; as a matter of fact, it is, by definition false. In modern society, we have a program called "Myth Busters"; these people attempt to debunk some old fables and beliefs, and if they are in fact false, science has established it to be so.

Further, in monotheistic religions, we have scholarly debate about it. Science has evolved from Muslim, Christian, and Jewish theology throughout the course of history. I would argue that, because we cannot definitively DISPROVE the existence of a monotheistic God, but mythology is definitively false, Allah is by definition far more likely to exist than Zeus or Thor.

=====> PROBABILITY <=====

With time, humanity progresses. We develop new technologies, sciences, and expand our knowledge to new heights. With time, we have learned that mythology is a fun fable to read; Greeks and Scandinavians left their traditions. There are still people who practice it, yes [1], but they are insubstantial.

Meanwhile, the umbrella of the Abrahamic religions overshadows half of the earth's population [2].

It would seem sufficient that, if over 3 billion people believe in the same God, while a few thousand believe in Zeus and Thor, it is more likely that the God followed by over 3 billion exists.

I will get into arguments from divinity on earth in the next round, if characters allow it.

Thanks again.

=====> SOURCES <=====

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://www.adherents.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Eccedustin

Pro

You say that in Monotheistic religions the origin of the stories is far different than that of mythological stories today that used to be legitimate religions. I disagree. The ancient people who made Scandinavian or Greek mythologies did so with the same intentions in mind: To explain the workings of the universe in a way that they could understand. This is the same reason that monotheistic religions were created as well. All of the stories in the Koran provide entertainment and life lessons, the same as in mythology.

Going by your definition of mythology, it could easily fit the stories in the Koran.

We can not disprove the existence of Allah. But can you disprove the existence of Odin or Thor? No. Of course not.

You also argue that because there are many more adherents of Monotheistic religions, this lends credence to its probability.

This is a logical fallacy called Argumentum ad populum, or argument by popularity.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
m93samman

Con

Thank you for your response.

My opponent claims that mythology was created in the same way that the Qura'an was, and for the same purpose; this is a demonstration of his lack of knowledge on the subject. The Qura'an has no entertainment value whatsoever; it is the most complicated literary work ever, that challenges humans to replicate it- it has never been done. As a matter of fact, there have been many challenges issued by the Qura'an to humans to attempt to invalidate it; none have been met. http://www.islamic-awareness.org... Furthermore, the Qura'an is filled with medical miracles and knowledge that was only discovered centuries ago, although written over a millennium ago. http://www.islamicmedicine.org...

As regards Greek mythology, I ask my opponent to attempt to make a comparison to the Qura'an.

"Going by your definition of mythology, it could easily fit the stories in the Koran." This is not true. Islam is not a culture, institution, or person; and it is not a collection of myths, either.

As for the logical fallacy my opponent claims I make, he disregards the evident truth behind the statement. Because practitioners of mythology are so few, and often times only practicing for the entertainment and cultural value, it is clearly no longer relevant. Just like there are very few people who still believe the earth is the center of the universe, and very many who believe it is not. The former is *probably* false.

I urge a Con vote; thanks again, and happy holidays.
Debate Round No. 3
Eccedustin

Pro

My opponent claims that the Quran has no entertainment value at all. I ask, Does the Quran not contain stories? Parables? Etc.? Can the Quran not be used for entertainment at all? I would differ on my opponent's opinion that the Quran is the most "complicated" literary work ever, however that isn't quite relevant here.

Can the Quran be invalidated? I believe so.

Issues:

1. Why is the Quran in Arabic? If it was sent down by the creator of the universe for all humanity, why is it in the language of the people who wrote it? Couldn't God have made a copy in every language for everyone to read? Or does God expect everyone to learn Arabic? And if so, why?

2. Quran-7:54 says the earth was created in 6 days. This is scientifically wrong.

3. Quran-41:9 says the earth was created in 2 days (contradiction).

4. Quran-22:47 says a day equals 1,000 years but Quran-70:4 says a day equals 50,000 years. However, regardless...either conversion to what science says would be factually wrong. The earth formed over millions of years.

These are just random things that came to my mind.

Islam is based on Islamic tradition (not just the Quran). Islam is based around a people and a culture (Arabs and the Middle east). Islamic culture spread to other parts of the world, but it is just that. Culture.
m93samman

Con

Thank you for your response.

I'll just go down my opponent's claims, for organization has been lost in the midst of this debate.

As for the entertainment question, my opponent does not distinguish between moral stories and entertaining stories. Simply because he is asking me this, he further demonstrates his lack of knowledge on the subject. To answer his question, no, the Qura'an does not contain any stories with an entertaining value in the sense of the term.

As for the supposed invalidation of the Qura'an, I ask my opponent to do his own research. I could prove very easily that his claims that the Qura'an are invalid are false, but

1) There is not enough character space,
2) My opponent has demonstrated his inadequate understanding multiple times, and I don't wish to do his homework for him, and
3) That is not the point of this debate.

As for the cultural claims, Islam is not a culture. Islam's largest demography is almost 2/3rds Pacific-Asian, not Middle-Eastern as my opponent claims [1]. As a matter of fact, the Middle-East is approximately a fifth of the total Muslim population.

Extend the probability and likelihood arguments, as my opponent dropped my round 3 defenses of them.

I hope my opponent can get back on track in his final round, because round 4 was absolutely non-topical and irrelevant to the debate.

Thank you, readers, for your time, I urge you to vote Con.

~~~SOURCES~~~

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
Eccedustin

Pro

Many people would likely disagree with my opponent on his claims that the Quran has no stories of entertainment value. Though, I think this is too much of a subjective thing to even argue here.

My opponent, in a DEBATE where he challenges me to invalidate the Quran tells me to "do my own research" when I post up passages of the Quran invalidating itself. This is no way to debate. Character space is limited, but if I'm wrong it should take much space to show.

My opponent seems to misunderstand the concept of a "debate". When I challenge you about something relating to this argument, you can't say "Do your own homework." That is not a rebuttal. The fact is I HAVE done my homework and the Quran DOES have flaws, contradictions and can be invalidated.

That IS the point of this debate. My opponent is arguing about the legitimacy of the Quran as an argument that Allah is more likely than Zeus, Thor, et al. Thus, that is the very point of this debate.

Is Islam a Culture? Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
m93samman

Con

I'm surprised that my opponent claims the Qura'an does have stories of entertainment value, in the face of someone who speaks, reads, and writes arabic, and reads the Qura'an itself. An appeal to ignorance should not be bought by the readers.

As for the debate, it is not to invalidate the Qura'an. My opponent's burden is to prove that Zeus and Thor likely exist as much as does Allah. The Qura'an is debated upon, Zeus and Thor are mythical creatures that have no merit. It is definitionally true that Zeus and Thor are far less likely to exist.

When I tell my opponent to do his own homework, it is because he has brought in arguments about the Qura'an, or supposed contradictions, that I could easily explain had I enough character space. I suggest he go to an Islamic website that explains to him, as opposed to an atheist website with that simply sites mistranslated and contextually skewed verses for contradictions. Or, he can challenge me to another debate on contradictions in the Qura'an.

And my opponent's own article says "As the religion of Islam originated in 7th century Arabia, the early forms of Muslim culture were predominantly Arab. With the rapid expansion of the Islamic empires, Muslims contacted and assimilated much from the Persian, Turkic, Mongol, Indian, Malay, Berber and Indonesian cultures."

My opponent clearly doesn't want to debate, he just wants to express his feelings. He didn't even read his own source. Maybe his mother cares?

I urge a Con vote, for there has really been no debate here.
Debate Round No. 5
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
"That's interesting, but no moreso than Nostradamus' predictions."

Getting 50% correct and 50% false (or much more) compared to getting 100% correct and 0% so far is quite a comparison in predictions...
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
I'm not sure what "parasitic meme" you're referring to, but okay. I'll try and keep this simple: if you honestly believe that a body that drowned over 1500 years ago in a body of water that is full of human-eating fish, bacteria, microbes and the like, and SURVIVED, even though there was an entire army of them- that one human corpse survived and remained perfectly in tact for that long, and you see nothing miraculous about it- there is no longer a point in discussing it with you. Just a heads up, if you dumped a corpse in the ocean, you wouldn't find it in a millenium and a half, much less in a century.
Posted by TombLikeBomb 6 years ago
TombLikeBomb
If your faith is as strong as is demanded of you by that parasitic meme you carry, there's obviously no point in discussing it with me or anyone else. But, as one who lacks that parasite, I remain curious: in what sense was the mummy in question miraculous natural body preservation? It had a piece of wood in its neck, for crying out loud! It was deliberately preserved, like many others of the same time and place and that look rather similar. What natural laws does mummification or even mummification of the drowned violate? As for the stronger assertion, that the Koran inexplicably referenced the feat, I have too many questions, so I'd better just ask for direct evidence: the relevant text of the Koran, who is speaking, and who if anyone is being quoted. If it's anything like the text that's meant to reference the water cycle, it's mere instrumental interpretation.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Article on miraculous natural body preservation: http://www.musalmantimes.com...

To keep it short, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I have to sleep early tonight to wake up tomorrow for something I have, 7am is when I'm due to wake up. Thanks again for your reminder; I can tell you're a punctual fellow.
Posted by TombLikeBomb 6 years ago
TombLikeBomb
This is your reminder.

If you'll recall, I didn't ask you to discount the possibility that God determines sex. But if God determines sex, there's no reason for there to be the (observed by microscope since having been predicted by evolutionary biological theory since the Koran was written) sperm sex ratio of 1/2. A sperm is a simple cell that does one thing: swim to and enter an egg. Even if same-sex sperm could conceivably cooperate against the other sex, they've never been observed to. Therefore, even if God weren't omnipotent, a sperm sex ratio of 1/2 would make no more sense, from a God-determines-sex standpoint, than 1/200-500 million (the number of sperm in a typical ejaculation). And, in fact, the latter would be more economical, as male sperm are easier to produce. For that matter, why must there be millions of sperm? Why not one potentially-determined-by-God-to-reach-the-egg sperm per sex per ejaculation? And what about the sex ratio that follows. Have you ever wondered why most sexual species have equal numbers of males and females? In some, particularly the polygamous ones, it's downright comical, with the vast majority of males doing nothing but consuming. One of the two factors, besides prior probability, of a theory's probability is the probability of observing the observed, given the theory. Unguided evolution favors (often necessitates) the observed, design does not. It's that simple.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Actually, look at the demographics. Atheists are #1
Posted by Eccedustin 6 years ago
Eccedustin
The problem is we've got too many Muslims and Christians on this website...
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
The "favorable translation" wouldn't be necessary if we all spoke Arabic :P Moreover, you can't adequately *disprove* that God intervenes and chooses a sperm cell with an X or a Y chromosome to create the zygote, if He exists.

I'll get to the physical laws later; remind me. I'm about to eat dinner
Posted by TombLikeBomb 6 years ago
TombLikeBomb
That's interesting, but no moreso than Nostradamus' predictions. Both rely on favorable translation and interpretation of rather vague assertions. And the final declaration, that God determines the viability or sex of the child is proven false. What was then a mystery is now known, for example, to be the predictable result of an approximately equal number of X- and Y-chromosomal sperm cells. If God decided sex, there would be no need for equal numbers; he could effect any proportion of males and females (including the present one) he wanted, given any positive, finite ratio of X- to Y-chromosomes. Now, about those violations of physical laws you teasingly referred to...
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by KymberLayne 6 years ago
KymberLayne
Eccedustinm93sammanTied
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 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
Eccedustinm93sammanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
Eccedustinm93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by marker 6 years ago
marker
Eccedustinm93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by adealornodeal 6 years ago
adealornodeal
Eccedustinm93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05