The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
36 Points
The Contender
Haasenfeffor
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The closer you are to God, the quicker your prayers will be answered

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 7 votes the winner is...
brian_eggleston
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,028 times Debate No: 14874
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (24)
Votes (7)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

God’s official residence, Heaven, is located in the Earth’s exosphere, beyond the thermosphere but inside the orbit of the Moon.

http://www.nasa.gov...

This location is ideal because it is close enough to Earth for God to receive people’s prayers without having to wait light years for them to travel across the great expanse of space, yet is far enough away to avoid Heaven colliding with communication satellites, orbiting space stations and the like.

From the point of view of people on Earth, therefore, obviously the higher your altitude the nearer you are to Heaven, and, therefore, the quicker your prayers will be heard.

That’s why Will and Kristen Sanders, the devout Christian co-owners of City Air Prayer: a helicopter charter outfit based in Colorado Springs; give free flights to Christian clerics so that Christian prayers can be fast-tracked ahead of the prayers of Muslims and Jews.

Being nearer to Heaven when praying also means you are closer to God, of course, and Will Sanders likens his prayer flights to communing with God atop a mountain.

http://www.gazette.com...

Conversely, when the last of the thirty-three miners that were trapped deep underground in Chile were eventually released last year they declared “God answered our prayers.” They didn’t say, but they may also have wondered why it took Him more than two months to do so.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

In fact, there were two reasons for the delay in His response.

Firstly, prayers obviously travel slower through solid rock than they do through thin air and, secondly, because being so far beneath the surface of the Earth, they were much further away from Heaven than everybody else that was praying to Him at the same time, and their prayers naturally got answered first.

So, if you ever need a favour from God, the best thing you can do is get as close to Him as possible: climb a mountain, board plane or even stand on the roof of a skyscraper and pray from there but, whatever you do, don’t go down a mine or into a cave or board a submarine and pray to God from down there: your prayers will take ages to get answered.

In conclusion, the closer you are to God, the quicker your prayers will be answered.

Thank you.

Haasenfeffor

Con

To clarify, in order to win this debate, the opposition must prove two things, 1: that there is a God, and two, that the closer you are to "God" the quicker your prayers will be answered, while I must prove that God does not exist.
To understand why "God does not exist" can be a legitimate scientific statement, it's important to understand what the statement means in the context of science. When a scientist says "God does not exist," they mean something similar to when they say "aether does not exist," "psychic powers do not exist," or "life does not exist on the moon."

All such statements are casual short-hand for a more elaborate and technical statement: "this alleged entity has no place in any scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations, cannot be used to predict any events, does not describe any thing or force that has yet been detected, and there are no models of the universe in which its presence is either required, productive, or useful."

What should be most obvious about the more technically accurate statement is that it isn't absolute. It does not deny for all time any possible existence of the entity or force in question; instead, it's a provisional statement denying the existence of any relevance or reality to the entity or force based on what we currently know. Religious theists may be quick to seize upon this and insist that it demonstrates that science cannot "prove" that God does not exist, but that requires far too strict of a standard for what it means to "prove" something scientifically.

Scientific Proof Against God

In God: The Failed Hypothesis — How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, Victor J. Stenger offers this scientific argument against the existence of God:

Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe.
Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence.
Look for such evidence with an open mind.
If such evidence is found, conclude that God may exist.
If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does not exist.
This is basically how science would disprove the existence of any alleged entity and is modified form of the argument from a lack-of-evidence: God, as defined, should produce evidence of some sort; if we fail to find that evidence, God cannot exist as defined. The modification limits the sort of evidence to that which can be predicted and tested via the scientific method.

Certainty & Doubt in Science

Nothing in science is proven or disproven beyond a shadow of any possible doubt. In science, everything is provisional. Being provisional is not a weakness or a sign that a conclusion is weak. Being provisional is a smart, pragmatic tactic because we can never be sure what we'll come across when we round the next corner. This lack of absolute certainty is a window through which many religious theists try to slip their god, but that's not a valid move.

In theory, it may be possible that someday we will come across new information requiring or benefiting from some sort of "god" hypothesis in order to better make sense of the way things are. If the evidence described in the above argument were found, for example, that would justify a rational belief in the existence of the sort of god under consideration. It wouldn't prove the existence of such a god beyond all doubt, though, because belief would still have to be provisional.

By the same token, though, it may be possible that the same could be true of an infinite number of other hypothetical beings, forces, or other things which we might invent. The mere possibility of existing is one that applies to any and every possible god, but religious theists only try to use it for whatever god they happen to personally favor. The possibility for needing a "god" hypothesis applies equally as well to Zeus and Odin as it does to the Christian god; it applies equally well to evil or disinterested gods as it does to good gods. Thus even if we limit our consideration to the possibility of a god, ignoring every other random hypothesis, there's still no good reason to pick out any one god for favorable consideration.
What Does "God Exists" Mean?

What does it mean to exist? What would it mean if "God exists" were a meaningful proposition? For such a proposition to mean anything at all, it would have to entail that whatever "God" is, it must have some impact on the universe. In order for us to say that there is an impact on the universe, then there must be measurable and testable events which would best or only be explained by whatever this "God" is we are hypothesizing. Believers must be able to present a model of the universe in which some god is "either required, productive, or useful."

This is obviously not the case. Many believers work hard trying to find a way to introduce their god into scientific explanations, but none have succeeded. No believer has been able to demonstrate, or even strongly suggest, that there are any events in the universe which requires some alleged "god" to explain. Instead, these constantly failing attempts end up reinforcing the impression that there is no "there" there — nothing for "gods" to do, no role for them to play, and no reason to give them a second thought. It's technically true that the constant failures don't mean that no one will ever succeed, but it's even more true that in every other situation where such failures are so consistent, we don't acknowledge any reasonable, rational, or serious reason to bother believing.
Therefore, God does not exist!
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to thank Haasenfeffor for his robust and incredibly impressive response: a rebuttal that may have shaken the faith of even the most devout of Christians reading it, no matter how wilfully ignorant of science they may choose to be, but please don't cast your votes in his favour just yet.
My opponent asked me to, firstly, prove that God exists and, secondly, prove that He answers prayers in order of receipt.
No problem, that’s easy, and I hope that my arguments will reassure any Doubting Thomas’ amongst the Christian voters who read my opponent's first round arguments.
So, firstly to address the question: “Does God Exist?”
Of course God exists: two billion Christians, thirteen million Jews and over a billion Muslims can’t be wrong, can they?
But even if their testimony is not enough for you, I shall respond to my opponent’s challenge to “present a model of the universe in which some god is ‘either required, productive, or useful.’"

However, I should point out that to pose this challenge is to misunderstand the very nature of God. My opponent makes the common mistake of assuming that God is some kindly old soul, who just want’s what’s best for all humankind, and that's simply not the case.
For a start off, God is a racist.
When He revealed Himself to the human race through His son (Jesus Christ), He didn’t send him to the African plains or to the jungles of South America or to the hinterlands of darkest Borneo to enlighten the primitive ‘savages’ resident there. No, He sent his boy to an outpost of the Roman Empire – the most advanced region on the planet at the time and the cradle of Western civilisation.
Even to this day, there are still people living in remote areas of the Third World who have never heard of Christianity, so what chance have they got of getting into Heaven? No chance, that’s what chance, but even if they were devout Christians, it still doesn’t follow that they would get into Heaven.
That’s because God considers black people to be sub-human: He created man in his own image, and God is white (we know that because His son was white, albeit a bit swarthy perhaps) and that’s very bad news for Afro-Caribbean Christians, by the way - who are going to be very upset when St Peter turns them away at the Pearly Gates by pointing to this sign:
Think about it: whenever we hear about a natural disaster it’s usually something like a Tsunami that wipes out tens of thousands of Indonesians and Sri Lankans, or an Earthquake that buries countless of Haitians alive, or a drought that kills millions of Ethiopians – it’s never a volcanic eruption that turns the British Isles into barren, lava-strewn wastelands, or a huge flood that completely inundates Belgium, Holland and low-lying areas of France and Germany, is it?
Now more generally speaking, the Bible is, of course, absolutely chock-full of wailing, smiting and gnashing of teeth, and within its pages children are sacrificed and fallen women are stoned to death on a wholesale basis.
So, we can see that, overall, God is not a very nice deity, and His actions are not always “required, productive or useful”, and thus it doesn’t follow that God does not exist.
Indeed, rather the contrary is true. That’s because the law of averages would suggest that natural disasters would affect affluent white people in the West just as much as they do impoverished black people in the Third World, which clearly isn’t the case, and this very strongly implies, if not absolutely proves, devine intervention.
So, now that I’ve proved the existence of God beyond all reasonable doubt, I will go on to prove that the time it takes God to answer your prayers is directly proportionate to your geographical proximity to Him as follows:
Prayers can be thought of as a form of telepathy whereby the brain is understood to be a physical scaffold for an entity of electrical and quantum impulses, which has the ability to send "quantum fluctuations" to other minds, or to God in the case of prayer.
Now, as Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity predicted, nothing, not even the quantum-electrical impulses of prayers, can travel faster than the speed of light.
Therefore, ignoring resistance from air (or rock as the case may be if you are a trapped Chilean miner), prayers will travel a certain distance over a given period of time - and the shorter that distance, the less time it will take the prayer to cover that distance.
Therefore, it duly follows that the closer you are to God, the quicker he will answer your prayers.
Thank you.

Haasenfeffor

Con

I would like to thank Brian for his amazing arguement, I must say that I was daunted by the perfection in it, i swear, a tear came to my eye. Now, I know that my opponent's argument was astounding, but I'd like the readers to hear what I have to say before they make their final decision. This debate all comes down to one point; whether or not God exists. Judging by the comments, I know that some people were confused as to why this was so. To clarify, if God does not exist, then pro cannot prove that distance will affect the speed of the prayers. Now, my opponent's argument hinges on the fact that "two billion Christians, thirteen million Jews and over a billion Muslims can't be wrong, can they?" Now, just because a lot of people believe something does not make it true. Hell, 4 billion people on earth can believe that 1 + 1 = 3, but that does not make it true. Belief does not create fact. Basically, people want to believe that there is a God out there. They want to believe that someone's taking care of you, that there is something after death, something to look forward too. They want to believe that there is justice in the universe, even if it only come after death. Of course, a large majority of the religious on earth have had their beliefs compounded into them since birth. But people's wishes, or fears, do not result in the creation of some omnipotent power. It does not create a "God" And in response to my opponents second argument, one sentence is enough, my opponent's personification of God as some cruel being is irrelevant, as God does not exist. He has no personality. And here is a little bit more evidence, to wrap up my part of this debate. As the readers see it, I urge them to negate the resolution, purely because God does not exist, and therefore, pro cannot prove his side of the case.

TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT
God doesn't exist.
If God doesn't exist, then if reason exists, then God doesn't exist.
Reason exists.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
If I say something doesn't have a cause, it doesn't have a cause.
I say the universe doesn't have a cause.
Therefore, the universe doesn't have a cause.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
I define God to be X.
Since I cannot conceive of X, X must not exist.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
I can't conceive of a perfect God.
One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
God doesn't exist.
God, if existing, is either necessary or unnecessary.
God is not necessary, therefore God must be unnecessary.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Check out the world/universe/giraffe. Isn't it complex?
Evolution (aka random chance) is a good enough explanation for me how they became so complex.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ARGUMENT FROM BEAUTY (aka TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT II)
Isn't that baby/sunset/flower/tree beautiful?
Evolution (aka random chance) is a good enough explanation for me how they became so beautiful.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF MIRACLES (I)
My aunt had cancer.
The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments.
My aunt prayed to God, but she died from her cancer anyway.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ARGUMENT FROM CREATION VS EVOLUTION
If evolution is true, then creationism is false, and therefore God doesn't exist.
Creation can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it and am not at all interested in studying it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF FEAR
If God exists then I'm going to Hell.
I'm not afraid of Hell. New Jersey is much worse.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE
[Arbitrary passage from OT]
[Arbitrary passage from NT]
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE
Look, there's really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid theists -- it's too complicated for you to understand. God doesn't exist whether you like it or not.
Therefore, doesn't God exist.
ARGUMENT FROM UNINTELLIGENCE
Okay, I don't pretend to be as intelligent as you guys -- you're obviously very well read. But I read the Skeptics Annotated Bible, and nothing you say can convince me that God exists. I don't feel him in my heart, and you are lying when you say you can feel him and see him working in your life. John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son into the world, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish from the earth?" That just proves what a evil, sadistic loser your God is.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF BELIEF
If God exists, then I should believe in Him.
I don't believe in God.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ARGUMENT FROM INTIMIDATION
See my fist?
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
PARENTAL ARGUMENT
My mommy and daddy told me that God doesn't exist.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ARGUMENT FROM NUMBERS
Millions and millions of people don't believe in God.
They can't all be wrong, can they?
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ARGUMENT FROM ABSURDITY (aka THE MOST COMMON ATHEIST ARGUMENT)
B---s---!
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ARGUMENT FROM ECONOMY
God doesn't exist, you bastards!
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
BOATWRIGHT'S ARGUMENT
Ha ha ha.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ARGUMENT FROM INSANITY
I forgot to take my meds.
Therefore, THERE IS NO GOD!!
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
Some say that Eric Clapton is God, but I hate his music.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ARGUMENT FROM INTERNET AUTHORITY
There is a website that successfully argues for the non-existence of God.
Here is the URL.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPREHENSIBILITY
Flabble glurk zoom boink blubba snurgleschnortz ping!
No one has ever refuted 1.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ARGUMENT FROM AMERICAN EVANGELISM
Telling people that God exists makes some televangelists filthy rich.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ARGUMENT FROM PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE
The Christian God doesn't exist.
Therefore, all worldviews which assume the Christian God's existence are false and incomprehensible.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ARGUMENT FROM BLINDNESS (I)
Christians are blind to reason, intelligence and logic.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ARGUMENT FROM BLINDNESS (II)
God is hate.
Hate isn't blind.
Ray Charles is blind.
Therefore, Ray Charles isn't God.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ARGUMENT FROM FALLIBILITY
Human reasoning is inherently flawed.
Therefore, there is no reasonable way to challenge a proposition.
I propose that God doesn't exist.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ARGUMENT FROM SMUGNESS
God doesn't exist.
I don't give a crap whether you believe it or not; I have better things to do than to try to convince you morons.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ARGUMENT FROM META-SMUGNESS
F--- you.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ARGUMENT FROM MANIFESTATIONS
People who see images of bearded faces or virgins in things like tortillas are fruitcakes and represent the whole of theism.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ARGUMENT FROM KITCHEN APPLIANCES
My toaster isn't God.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ARGUMENT FROM COMPLETE DEVASTATION
A plane crashed killing all 143 passengers and crew.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ARGUMENT FROM POSSIBLE WORLDS
If things had been different, then things would be different.
That would be good.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ARGUMENT FROM SHEER WILL
I DON'T believe in God! I DON'T believe in God! I don't I don't I don't I DON'T believe in God!
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ARGUMENT FROM NONBELIEF
The majority of the world's population are nonbelievers in Christianity.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ARGUMENT FROM POST-DEATH EXPERIENCE
Person X died an theist.
He now realizes his mistake.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
ARGUMENT FROM EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL
God doesn't exist.
If you believe in him, people will always laugh at you.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.
Debate Round No. 2
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by blueberryskyy 5 years ago
blueberryskyy
Silly, childish debate. If God is all powerful, all knowing he can hear and answer your prayers anywhere and in a timely matter. If you want to believe in God become a Pantheist. At least there is some science to backup the exsistence of a singularity before the expansion of the universe.
Posted by Haasenfeffor 5 years ago
Haasenfeffor
nope
Posted by thegodhand 5 years ago
thegodhand
u sure ur an atheist?
Posted by Haasenfeffor 5 years ago
Haasenfeffor
hmm...... I think I lose! I bow to your superiority. Sorry for the plagiarism, but i really had no time to do this debate.
Posted by reddj2 5 years ago
reddj2
The god the Christans worship is Satan
Posted by Greyparrot 5 years ago
Greyparrot
The premise for alot of debates are understood to be assumed in order to debate the conclusion.

Assuming god exists, if you are closer to him, your prayers will be answered faster. Great debate!
Posted by Cyrus75 5 years ago
Cyrus75
brian-eggleston so if Apollo 13 say they went to bed and prayed god please help us have a safe flight there prayer would be answered but it didn't The oxygen tank blew up and everything went into havoc so...........well I think I proved my point.
Posted by Sky_ace25 5 years ago
Sky_ace25
CON YOU DIRTY BASTARD YOU COPIED YOUR ENTIRE OPENING ARGUMENT FROM THIS SITE!

http://atheism.about.com...
Posted by Sky_ace25 5 years ago
Sky_ace25
Why does everybody who take CON in a religious debate always argue NO MAN,,GOD DOESN"T EXIST!!! PRO MUST PROVE IT!!

It's really getting annoying.
Posted by reddj2 5 years ago
reddj2
Pro sucked because he said Jesus is white.
god is not racist just power hungry relgious leaders are ;who happen to be white(at the time)
Also Jesus was a jew.
Btw I am not religious
God could be aliens ,and before you say aliens don't exist look at us; there is evidence that we started from space as microbes
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
brian_egglestonHaasenfefforTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro offered very effective arguments and though I don't believe in any god, from a logical perspective, pro had much better arguments then con.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
brian_egglestonHaasenfefforTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: C
Vote Placed by darkkermit 5 years ago
darkkermit
brian_egglestonHaasenfefforTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO proves that god exisits, since god is racist. CON offers no rebuttal as why more disasters occur in predominately black communities rather than white. CON offers no rebuttal to the argument. Since CON only argument was that god does not exist, PRO wins.
Vote Placed by Robikan 5 years ago
Robikan
brian_egglestonHaasenfefforTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I actually found Pro's argument ridiculous, but he did an excellent job of presenting it and Con missed a lot of opportunities to refute it.
Vote Placed by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
brian_egglestonHaasenfefforTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were much better within the context of the debate. Many of Con's arguments were plagiarized, and his string of arguments at the end were terrible.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
brian_egglestonHaasenfefforTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con loses all points for copying someone else's arguments without citing.
Vote Placed by Sky_ace25 5 years ago
Sky_ace25
brian_egglestonHaasenfefforTied
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 YOU DIRTY BASTARD YOU COPIED YOUR ENTIRE OPENING ARGUMENT FROM THIS SITE! http://atheism.about.com... I don't care what anybody says about vote-bombing, noobs who copy other people's arguments need to be punished.