The Instigator
Tanith
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Amveller
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

The earth WAS created by God

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: 5/15/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,044 times Debate No: 16532
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (17)
Votes (7)

 

Tanith

Pro

First, some questions for the opponent. If the earth and the universe and everything was created by a tiny particle, then where did that particle come from? If the solar system including the earth was the result of a solar nebula that collapsed from the formation of the sun, then where did the solar nebula come from? If at first the earth was a hot glowing ball of white hot gases, where did the hot glowing ball of white hot gases come from?

All of the answers to those questions lead to one main idea, there was some being that had to have created those things. Therefore, God is the obvious answer.

I believe that God created the earth because it is the most reasonable answer to me and many other people in this world. Since science can only prove what is observable, everything that deals with God can not be proved with science, however that also means that science can not disprove anything about God.

Look around yourself when you are outside, no mere man or woman could have created all the beauties you see. (By beauties I mean the trees, the flowers, the animals, the plants, the grass, the insects. No mere man or woman could have possibly created all that stuff and more.) When I look at the beauties of the universe I see the handiwork of God.

We came from the dust of the ground according to the Holy Bible(created by the hand of God), and thus when we die, we return to the dust of the ground.
Amveller

Con

I can not answer any of Pro's questions because, he did not structure this debate as (Pro believes God created the earth and Con believes the Earth was created by the Big Bang theory) this debate lacks any structure therefore; the BOP in this debate was on my opponent, and he has failed to prove anything.

My opponent believes that because we can't explain the creation of the universe, God must have done it. Most people can't possibly fathom the immensity of the universe so to assume that there is a creator who conjured up the whole of it is preposterous.

In any debate it is important to assert the facts. Facts are the basic support structure of any argument, and anybody with common sense would agree. So let's examine the facts;

*The definition of FACT; an idea that is true because of circumstantial evidence to support it.

My opponent says "I believe that God created the earth because it is the most reasonable answer to me" but he writes of no factual evidence to back up his claims. He would first have to "prove" the existence of God before he could prove God created the earth. He only acts on "Faith" Definition of FAITH; to believe in something without circumstantial evidence to support it. "We came from the dust of the ground according to the Holy Bible(created by the hand of God)" This is not based on fact, it is based on faith. No one can prove God spoke to Moses and told him what to write.

With absolutely no factual evidence to back up his claim, and the BOP being the responsibility of Pro, and Pro basing his entire argument on a simple faithful assumption, Pro loses by default. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 1
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
On the side of the argument, CON does much better. Sorry, PRO.
Posted by Tanith 6 years ago
Tanith
I am a GIRL you dummy!(Con)
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
By peer reviewed publications I would mean the formal process of academic review. In general peer review of academic work includes a much broader base yes.
Posted by XimenBao 6 years ago
XimenBao
There's peer review and then there's "peer review." You can use the term to refer to all review, but it makes your comment "Are you really asserting that Craig has not published in any peer reviewed sources?" silly because all sources are peer reviewed by this definition. You put any publication out anywhere and someone is going to comment on it in some fashion. Broadening the definition to that point renders it meaningless
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"That's just not what the phrase means when you're talking about academic publications."

For an article yes, but in general there is much more to peer review than just that. It is simply all manner of ways in which peers review work in the scientific community. For example before you publish you typically present either in person or in preprint journals, these can and usually do generate a lot of review. You typically get more feedback there than you do in the actual journal submission which tends to be grammar more than anything else.
Posted by Amveller 6 years ago
Amveller
I think you two should start a new debate on this topic! That way my phone would stop blowing up from your comments here..just a thought
Posted by XimenBao 6 years ago
XimenBao
That's just not what the phrase means when you're talking about academic publications. It's specifically the pre-publication review process, not any activity which could conceivably correct/contradict an opinion.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Peer review is the process by which, among other things, invalid arguments would be rejected. You can not post jibberish to peer reviewed publications. Peer review also contains many methods by which the community (peers) can oppose arguments which are flawed, either by letters to the editor, or contrasting publications. Thus if you knew that a publication was flawed then you would exercise one of these options.
Posted by XimenBao 6 years ago
XimenBao
@ Cliff. No, I'm asserting that responding to claims of Craig making flawed arguments by saying "That is what peer review is for, so peer review them" is not accurately representing peer review.

Also, when you point to him for academic resources for creationism and the vast majority of his publications are in religion and philosophy journals, then peer review doesn't act as much of a filter.
Posted by Skeptical 6 years ago
Skeptical
I'm not sure how the Pro reached the conclusion that god is the "obvious answer." Where did god come from? If the universe isn't able to exist on it's own... how exactly does a god come into being? Why should this god be beyond scientific scrutiny?

Given the lack of evidence for supernatural intelligent beings it seems much more reasonable to conclude that there must be some sort of natural process at work here. If the universe is the result of/part of an infinite universe/multiverse then there's no need for any sort of creator. There's no need to anthropomorphize infinity.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by HandsofManos 6 years ago
HandsofManos
TanithAmvellerTied
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: con by default
Vote Placed by boredinclass 6 years ago
boredinclass
TanithAmvellerTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: 1 round debates are terrible for the instigator
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
TanithAmvellerTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Instigator did not satisfy the burden of proof
Vote Placed by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
TanithAmvellerTied
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: Pro has BOP and didn't show it!
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
TanithAmvellerTied
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: Unfortunately, Con is right... Pro has the Burden of Proof and did not fulfill it. Even though I think that Pro is arguing the right answer... debates are more about how we GET to the answer than the answer itself. However, Con did not attempt to make any answers for the questions raised, and although they are not raised in an argument fashion... they are legitimate questions that someone believing in naturalistic answers for the origin of matter needs to contend with. 1 point to pro for that
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
TanithAmvellerTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Very common argument, essentially foundational to fine-tuning (see all of this, could it be without God?), but not strongly presented and reads more like an argument from ignorance. 2 pts to Con, mainly by default.
Vote Placed by Phoenix_Reaper 6 years ago
Phoenix_Reaper
TanithAmvellerTied
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: Not a real debate as Con pointed out. Also using faith as your argument points is just bad.