The Instigator
PhileasFoggOfVictoria
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Topiarey
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

The Qur'an and Modern Science: compatible or incompatible?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
Topiarey
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,648 times Debate No: 28800
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (3)

 

PhileasFoggOfVictoria

Pro

Muslims see the Koran as a miracle of all times. This means that it should remain a miracle until the end of the existence of man. For example, the pyramids of Egypt were a miracle, according to their extraordinary height. But today, we build a lot of buildings far higher than any of this pyramids. It is no longer a miracle...
The Koran was brought about 1400 years back. We Muslims do not believe its is the work of any man, we believe it is the word of God, without the exception of a single verse. It is brought to mankind in Arabia, in the desert, to an illiterate (namely Muhammad, peace be upon him) but it was in the era of Poetry. And all of the experts on Arabic poetry agree that there is not a single work of Arabic poetry superior to the beauty and eloquence to the Koran.
Now it is the age of Science. Does the Koran fit in that?

I say, indeed.

First of all, this Big Bang, of which the idea was established in the year 1931, is stated in the Glorious Koran thus: "Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth (meaning the entire existence) were joined together, before we clove them asunder?" {Koran 21:30}It is clear for willing souls that this verse refers to the Big Bang. And who other than the Creator of all events could know this information 1400 years back?
More proof of the Big Bang theory: "Then He (God) turned to the sky, and it had been as smoke. He said to it and to the earth: 'Come ye together, with or without your will' They said: 'We do come together, in willing obedience.'" (Koran 41:11)So, the sky and earth were (as) smoke, that is a hot matter, which is true according to science. And then they came together to make the earth and the sky. Other planets are of course included. Is that not wondrous?

Furthermore, the Koran also points the true shape of the earth, what is not only spherical but geo-spherical. "And the earth, moreover, hath He (God) extended to the shape of an ostrich egg. If you have ever seen an ostrich egg, you notice it is big and more spherical than a chicken egg, but not totally...The Greeks firstly stated the existence of atoms. 'Atom' actually means 'not splitable, massif'. We have recently discovered that an atom is indeed splitable in theory. Therefore, the Koran says: "...By Him Who knows the invisible, from Whom not the least atom is hidden in the Heavens and the earth; or something smaller than that, or greater, but it is in the record perspicuous." (Koran 34:3)
Clear, is it not?

In the field of geology, we learn that the mountains we see are like icebergs: we see a small tip on earth's face, but the majority is buried deeply. The Koran states: "Have we not made the earth as a wide expanse, and the mountains as pegs?" This word 'peg' can also be translated as 'stake'. In fact, they are used to set tents on the ground. Now, if you put the majority of a peg of stake above the face of the ground, it does not stand firm, and thus, the tent will be blown away. But it stands firm, so the peg is buried deeply in the ground.


This is not even a tip of the great knowledge of science in the Koran, but I shall reveal other points in a next round...

Peace be upon he or she who reads this
Topiarey

Con

I thank my opponent for starting a debate on such an interesting topic. My opponent believes that the Koran, a work of Allah, is compatible with modern science. However, I strongly disagree. I will refute his points in this round and then put forward my own.

Here are some definitions:

Incompatible: Not logically or factually connecting absolutely.

First of all, my opponent seems to believe in the total validity of the Koran. While this may or may not tie in with his arguments in the debate, keep this in mind voters. It seems he treats it with absolutely authority and extreme praise. (It is brought to mankind in Arabia, in the desert, to an illiterate (namely Muhammad, peace be upon him) but it was in the era of Poetry. And all of the experts on Arabic poetry agree that there is not a single work of Arabic poetry superior to the beauty and eloquence to the Koran.)


1. The Big Bang - an Attempt at Justification

You have absolutely no proof or evidence that the Koran is actually referring to a big bang.The exact phrasing is "the heavens and the earth were joined together, before we clove them asunder".

My opponent is using a simple trick that most faiths and religious institutions use to justify their ridiculous texts. A slight relation to modern science. While his phrase from the Qu'ran may inspire doubts about the difference between Science and the Qu'ran, make no mistake, they are completely different. This single passage is not interconnected with Science at all, and is purely coincidental. "It is clear for willing souls that this verse refers to the Big Bang." I disagree. I believe that the relation from the Big Bang and this phrase is extremely muddled and unclear. How can we honestly say that it was directly referring back to a singular astronomical event?
An addition to my case against the Big Bang and the Qu'ran is this - the earth and the heavens did not exist before the big bang, so how were they together? From what modern science understands, matter did not exist before the big bang, so how could the earth and the heavens exist at all?Modern science does not point to the existence of heavens, or heaven at all, therefore they directly contradict one another.

Also, even if your phrase from the Qu'ran was referring back to the Big Bang, modern science and the Qu'ran are still incompatible because modern science doesn't claim that a higher power, such as a god, caused the big bang. This small difference makes the two incompatible.

2. The Earth is Round - A Knowledge that Precursed the Qu'ran

While the Qu'ran's reference back to actual scientific discoveries is remarkable in comparison with other religious texts, it is still for naught in relation to modern science.
In fact, Ancient Greeks knew the Earth was spherical. Eratosthenes even calculated Earth size in 240 B.C. using simple geometry applied to how shadows of the Sun looked at the same time in two different places.

The Qu'ran's description of the earth as an ostrich egg is wholy incompatible with modern science and is obviously guestimation from a previous discovery. Ostrich eggs, are evidently ovular (http://www.blogcdn.com...), and are in fact not even close to the shape of the Earth (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov...). In order for the two to be compatible, the Qu'ran must be factually correct with modern science.

3. The Mountains.

My opponent's assertion is complete guesswork, also a trick to relate an ancient book to modern science. It is completely ridiculous and is impossible to defend in any way. This small comparison of tents and stakes make literally make no strong case for the Qu'rans legitimacy and are simply word play.

To say "The mountains are firm in the ground" does not mean that it is compatible with science. I will get to this in my own points.

The Koran has no Knowledge and is Fundamentally Wrong in Every Possible Way, from mono-theism to its idea of morality.

Now, onto my point.

1. The Koran preaches Mono-Theism

The Koran tells its readers that the world and universe was created by a being they call "Allah". However, Modern Science is in direct contradiction to this and does not preach this idea of mono-theism. The Koran bases all of its beliefs off of thin air and silly customs. Mono-Theism is not true, as it has not been proved my modern science, therefore they are incompatible even for the slightest difference.


Finally, I'd like to say that any difference between Modern Science and the Qu'ran makes them incompatible, as Science is absolute truth while the Qu'ran is a mixture of folk tales created by murdering pillagers who traveled the land forcing people to convert or death.

If my opponent cannot prove that the Qu'ran is exactly accurate with modern science in all of its passages, a dubious task that he cannot possiby complete in his remaining characters, then Con wins.

Debate Round No. 1
PhileasFoggOfVictoria

Pro

First of all, I wish to thank my rival for proving the nerve of accepting a rather difficult subject for one without right knowledge about it as him.

I also want to point out the fact that my opponent is really as much as steadfast on his point of view as I am on mine. He treats every single word that could lead to religious thoughts as unpersuasive nonsense and even dares to put lies about it. (...the Qu'ran is a mixture of folk tales created by murdering pillagers who traveled the land forcing people to convert or death) - (The Koran has no Knowledge and is Fundamentally Wrong in Every Possible Way, from mono-theism to its idea of morality)
This is undeniable corruption in the heart, but that is not my problem.

Furthermore, the language in which we are keeping this debate, that beautiful language English, has just as the Arabic some variations in meaning.
For example, the word 'stumps' has three meanings: nationals, stubble and legs. These meanings are not quite related to one another, but if one would put the sentence 'The masseuse rubbed the customer's stumps', only an idiot would suggest that he is talking about nationals. But if one reads the sentence on a historical source 'The Queen had all her stumps rubbed', there might be a slight doubt. Then you go to other sources about the events and see how it is compared. But if you are studying about a queen, the diaries of her children will be more trustworthy than that of a simple national. And if you see one fact twice, the one more doubtful than the other, the comparability indicates the truth in both sources.

Muslims like me believe that the Koran was written by God, and in this book God claims that there is nothing from the future or the past, great or small, hidden or open, that He does not know. This means that the trustworthiness of this Koran in the eyes of unbelievers like my rival depends on its comparability with Science.

I notice that I also forgot to mention that the Glorious Koran is not a book of SCIENCE, but it is a book of SIGNS. It is not meant to educate men in the field of SCIENCE, but in the field of TRUTH, which He expresses in SIGNS.

And if I would bury a book tonight, about any field of science at all, and excavate it after 20 years, probably about half the book will be nonsense, while we see it as absolute truth today. Science changes, signs do not.

Monotheism rejected by science?

After defending my points once more, I shall disprove my opponent's assumptions.
He truthfully states that Science does not preach Monotheism. Indeed it does not, but does it reject it?
Find me one piece of EVIDENCE (not the opinion of this or that so called scientist) that disproves the existence of God.

And furthermore, the founder of that foolish evolution theory, Charles Darwin, was not an Atheist, but an agnostic. This means he did not state that there was a God, and he did not reject it.

I wish, honourable rival, that you keep your insults by you and do not offend others with them. It is not for you may or may not have a heart, that others do not care about their Master.


Topiarey

Con

1)-Thank you for thanking me. I have to say that its blatantly clear I was not insulting you personally, but was simply making comments on religion in general. And I know a lot about Islam other than meaningless passages in the Koran.
2) Yes, I am. I believe that the Koran is not compatible with modern science just as much as you are into Islam and the Koran BEING compatible. My sentence is actually, factually correct.

Read a history book about Muhammed and why Islam spread at all. Not corruption - truthful thinking. I actually believe the real corruption in this debate is the blatant love for Islam you have, nothing wrong with that at all as there is nothing wrong with regular religion in my opinion.

Great.

And you are absolutely right. The trustworthiness of the Koran in my opinion depend directly to its link on modern Science.

Now I'll jump into case points.


1) Opponent Concedes Arguments

My opponent conceded all of his arguments accept for my own. This means you, the voter, have absolutely no reason to vote for him at all seeing all of his arguments towards to resolution are refuted.

2) Monotheism Rejected by Science

My opponent clearly does not understand the theory of scientific understanding. In general in a scientific experiment on a thesis, similarly as it is with debates, the affirmation believing in a resolution will have to prove that his resolution is in fact true using the laws of science. If he cannot prove that God exists - then the laws of Science are opposed to that idea/resolution.

So, indeed, you yourself must prove that God is true for Science to accept it. Until you do, religion is incompatible with science.

Didn't have much to say this round. I hope my opponent responds promptly and I thank him for his arguments.

It seems like you've taken criticism of your religion as a criticism of yourself. I can insult or undermine the ethical value a religion like Islam, just as I can insult a religion such as Buddhism, but I urge you not to take personal offense. You yourself can insult agnosticism/atheism.

Also, I found it funny how you baselessly believe a man in the sky made everything yet you say Darwinism is "ridiculous." Whatever, against the relevancy of the debate.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
PhileasFoggOfVictoria

Pro

I would like to thank my honourable opponent once again for responding so quickly.
Nevertheless, I am in absolute disagreement with almost all of his points made in his last argument.
First of all, dear voters, it is clear that this man is not sincere. He approaches you in such a way that he almost begs you to vote for him. This man seeks pride and fame, although, as he may or may not know, he has quite the same age as I do...

Then, if you would be so kind (and honest), recommend me a
real historic book that describes the attitude of our respected prophet, peace be with him, thus. The argument you gave was lame and without evidence...

Next, as I said, there is plenty of more proof of scientific facts put in the Koran. But as I will have to use all my time to point out the existence of God properly, so I wish to leave you with a expert on these regards: Dr. Zakir Naik



Is there proof of the existence of God?

My honourable rival has mocked God by saying He would be a man in the sky. He is clearly convinced by a misconception. We Muslims do not compare God with any of his creations. He has no gender (though the male genders in grammar are used for honour) nor has he a child or a wife. There is nothing whatsoever like him. Linking Him to a 'man in the sky' is indeed an insult to Him.
Furthermore, he says that something can only be regarded as true if it is in agreement with Science. I see he has skipped a part of my second argument, for he missed my statement: 'And if I would bury a book tonight, about any field of science at all, and excavate it after 20 years, probably about half the book will be nonsense, while we see it as absolute truth today. Science changes, signs do not.'
This means that science changes. It changes all the time. What is true today is false tomorrow. What is false today is true tomorrow.

You must know, if God had wanted everyone to believe, He would have showed Himself to us. That is the weakness of man: he only believes what he can see.
God does not want us all to believe, He wants but a few to believe.
Those who are willing enough to see the truth of his SIGNS, has God blessed with this treasure called faith...
Some people turn themselves against religion. Why would God guide them?

Try to see. My opponent is a clever man. He is.
How did he get clever?

What if never anyone had learnt him to read or write? How could he have become learned like this?
He needed a source of knowledge, did he not? Books, in most cases.

People like my opponent believe that there is no God, so the Koran was written by a man. (This was quite impossible, anyway: he was illiterate)
That should mean that he had sources for all that knowledge.
Now, the poor man had never attended school. He couldn't have learnt himself, for he couldn't read. What was his source of knowledge?

Even the most intelligent man cannot grab so many scientific facts far before their factual discovery, just by thinking and making everything up. There must be some contradiction. But there is not.

Furthermore, has Science yet disproved the existence of Unicorns?
No, it has not.

Ask any biologist who is worthy of the name, and he/she will respond: 'Most probably not.'
Most probably, you ask then. Why most probably?

'Because we haven't seen any so far', will be the answer.
If you haven't seen something yet, you have no prove that it can't exist. Do feel free to disprove this statement with accurate evidence, if you think you can.

Now, we have evidence.
In that Koran over there, where Astronomy, Botany, Biology, Geology, Embryology (in great detail), Water Cycles and many others are described clearly, you cannot find any source where this uneducated illiterate could have got all these facts from, except the Maker of all things, God.
He made it, so He knows best how it works...

This makes that Pro has got real evidence (namely the Koran and its scientific SIGNS) and Con has got only silly talk and an infernal hate against every thought leading to God.

I suggest that every voter chooses well whom he votes for. Do not be as my honourable rival, and do not be stubborn...

At last, I would like to grant my opponent best wishes and thank him for such an interesting debate. I hope I will have the honour to discuss with him again in the future.

Peace be upon you all.
Topiarey

Con

I thank you for your response, and I'd like to thank you for what has been an interesting debate.

I expect you to be in absolute disagreement with all of my points because I am in contrary opinion of the resolution. How in any way am I not sincere? I disagree with all religions as I'm an agnostic leaning towards Deism. You've given no examples of how I approaches the voters begging them to vote for me. I seriously doubt I'm going to receive my pride and fame from debating on an online debating site. I get plenty of that at policy national tournaments.

ttp://www.amazon.com...

I found a book that describes the downsides of your prophet.

Here are some quick criticisms of your so called "doctor". I found of them online. These are borrowed from other sites, and do not belong to me.

In The Wall Street Journal, Sadanand Dhume criticised Naik for recommending the death penalty for homosexuals and for apostasy from the faith.[43] He also criticised him for calling for India to be ruled by Shariah law. He added that, according to Naik, Jews "control America" and are the "strongest in enmity to Muslims." He maintained that Naik supports a ban on the construction of non-Muslim places of worship in Muslim lands as well as the Taliban's bombing of the Bamiyan Buddhas. Dhume argues that people reportedly drawn to Naik's message include Najibullah Zazi, the Afghan-American arrested for planning suicide attacks on the New York subway; Rahil Sheikh, accused of involvement in a series of train bombings in Bombay in 2006; and Kafeel Ahmed, the Bangalore man fatally injured in a failed suicide attack on Glasgow airport in 2007. He concluded that unless Indians find the ability to criticise such a radical Islamic preacher as robustly as they would a Hindu equivalent, the idea of Indian secularism would remain deeply flawed.[43]

Your source for the existence of a god is from a Muslim who studied to be a MEDICAL DOCTOR who claims that all homosexuals should be put to death. I believe the voters can decide if he is an adequate source. He is in no means an expert because he actually believes in a god.

Is there proof of the existence of God?

I can't mock or truly offend someone by insulting something that doesn't exist. Don't take offense, and I don't see how my "mocking of god" has anything to do with this debate at all.


You don't understand science or the "file cabinet of truth". According to the laws of universal logic and science, a theory such as the existence of god must be proven over and over again for it to become scientific fact. And I disagree with you: all major scientific discoveries that have become regarded as Scientific fact have remained true. Its just a few theories that have changed over time.

For example, most of Newton's laws that are most used have not changed and are regarded as scientific fact. In addition, the legitimacy of modern science has nothing to do with the resolution so I don't see why you're debating it at all. I feel like you'd feel more comfortable if this debate was about the existence of the Judeo-Christian god.

God doesn't exist, because you have no proof, and this so called "doctor" certainly doesn't either. If god DID exist, he probably would have shown himself to us. The weakness of man is the fact he believes what he does not see, or things he has no reason to believe. Your signs are all coincidence and make believe.

The MOST intelligent man CAN grab so many scientific facts before their factual discovery just because of what they observe around them. If something says: The sky is blue, then that becomes scientific fact because under every test the sky remains blue. If someone says "the mountain goes underneath the earth", who's to say he didn't discover that for himself? Is there any reason to believe a majestic all powerful god came down to tell him that, when its 99.9999% likelier that he just found it on his own. Why do you think we know so much today? Men came up with Science. God didn't preach science to them.

Has Science yet disproved the existence of Unicorns?

No, and it never has, because it is the burden of proof of the Unicorn theist supporters to prove its true under scientific guidelines.

You don't understand how science works. Any idea has the burden of proof of passing under several logical and visual tests to prove that its correct. We don't have to prove it doesn't exist for it to not exist under the laws of science. YOU have to prove it does exist under the laws of science.


You didn't give any of these examples before, and I doubt they are credible, and you haven't stated what exact parts of Astronomy, Botany, Bziology, Geology, Embryology, and Water Cycle are in the Koran.

As I've already stated, someone could've observed these things and stated "GOD HAS DECLARED UPON ME THESE THINGS ARE TRUE!"

God did not make it because he doesn't exist, so he doesn't know how it works because he doesn't have a psychosis.


The Pro has not gotten real evidence. Although there are coincidental similarities between the Koran and Modern Science these are all due to the observations of man. HOWEVER, what is MOST important is that this religious book and modern science are not compatible because of the lack of proof for many claims made in the Koran.

If mono-theism is not proven under scientific guidelines, then the Koran is not compatible with Science because it has a theory that hasn't been proven through Scientific Standards, therefore they are claiming to preach truth while it is unproven. As I've stated in my definition, if their descriptions of the universe don't match directly they are not compatible because they have internal clash.

Vote Neg because the Koran has unproven truths in its texts, making it incompatible with science due to my definition.




Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JordanGauger 1 year ago
JordanGauger
What is a "Koran" aha, it's the "Qur'an" as clearly aforementioned.
Posted by devient.genie 1 year ago
devient.genie
There is no debate. Incompatible is the only answer. Votes are beliefs, beliefs dont change facts.

It doesnt matter if everyone believes the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around an earth that just sits still, beliefs do not change facts

the bible hangs out with harry potter, and leprechauns

Evolution hangs out with 2+2=4

Its 2013, denying evolution this late in the game is equivalent to denying water is 2 parts hyderogen and 1 part oxygen, sayi how I see water" will never change that :)
Posted by Magic8000 1 year ago
Magic8000
'Do not the Unbelievers see

well,um no. If it was the big bang we certainly couldn't "see" it. We couldn't even see any evidence for it until recently. How could it be foreseeing a scientific theory with the words 'Do not the Unbelievers see"

"the heavens and the earth were joined together and we clove them asunder"

The earth and the heavens weren't joined or separated . The earth didn't even exist until 4 billion years ago. There's no way this verse is talking about the big bang.

The idea that the heavens and earth were once joined and then separated by the activity of Gods and Goddesses was actually quite common among pagans of the Middle East. Among the Egyptians for example, it was the involuntary separation of Geb (the earth god) from his wife and sister Nut (the sky goddess) that was responsible for the division of the earth from the sky. The Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh likewise describes the moment "when the heavens had been separated from the earth, when the earth had been delimited from the heavens" as a result of the separation of a sky God (An) from a earth Goddess (Ki). If you remove the pagan references, you have the same story as found in the Qur"an.

Con did a good job taking down the shape of the earth claim.

And the mountains are hardly as pegs.

http://wikiislam.net...
Posted by Hay 1 year ago
Hay
Arunav you think that it is offensive to Atheists you should see how much you are offensive to muslims
Posted by Topiarey 1 year ago
Topiarey
Actually, technically I don't because he misrepresented his source as an "expert" who doesn't, to begin with, have anything but a medical degree and used no legitimate evidence in any of that speech I watched. However I respect your judgement.
Posted by Topiarey 1 year ago
Topiarey
I agree Bodhivaka, I didn't actually take this debate seriously and it was a terrible performance by me. I deserve to lose on conduct.
Posted by Bodhivaka 1 year ago
Bodhivaka
I think Con made this debate a lot harder on himself than was necessary; all he had to do was introduce one scientific teaching which contradicted the Qur'an, such as evolution, and Pro's position would have been immediately discredited.
Posted by DudeWithoutTheE 1 year ago
DudeWithoutTheE
What Arunav just posted implies that religion is by its very nature offensive. I don't think that's true. Especially since the resolution is basically only 'It is not impossible, if we accept modern science, that Islam MIGHT be true.' (Asserting that two things are compatible doesn't mean buying that both are true).

narmak, devient.genie, what you believe about the resolution is irrelevant to debating. I agree with CON - but you cannot just, in effect, argue that 'Monotheism is stupid' and expect to carry the day in a formal debate.

I was going to state that the manner in which CON argued this means he should lose conduct. But PRO accusing him of being clearly insincere probably makes this a wash.
Posted by Arunav 1 year ago
Arunav
I just want to say..this debate is offensive to atheists or other people with different religions. I really don't think that Qur'an and modern science will ever go together
Posted by buddah 1 year ago
buddah
u guys suck at debating
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 1 year ago
Magic8000
PhileasFoggOfVictoriaTopiareyTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I couldn't really decide who to give the arguments to. They were bad all around. Rebuttals to pro were lacking. However since pro ignored so much of con and went off on red herrings, I'm going to have to give it to con. However Con could've done a lot better.
Vote Placed by devient.genie 1 year ago
devient.genie
PhileasFoggOfVictoriaTopiareyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: The Qur'an and Modern Science: compatible or incompatible? What color is anxiety in the morning and does it change colors based on the smell of a car horn? Just because we can ask a question, does not mean that question deserves intelligent consideration.
Vote Placed by Bodhivaka 1 year ago
Bodhivaka
PhileasFoggOfVictoriaTopiareyTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Rather than addressing Con's rebuttals against the alleged "signs" contained within the Qur'an, Pro let Con take control of the debate, which ultimately became an argument about whether or not God exists; therefore, seeing as how most of Con's rebuttals went unchallenged, he receives points for arguments. Pro gets points for conduct due to the fact that Con attempted to discredit Zakir Naik's academic credentials simply by criticizing his morals.