The Instigator
KRFournier
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
theCall
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The following argument for the non-existence of God is invalid.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
KRFournier
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,853 times Debate No: 9024
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)

 

KRFournier

Pro

Seeing that haven't been any debate challenges appearing lately, I thought I'd throw one out there.

Simply put, the challenger that accepts this debate will offer an argument for the non-existence of God. I will attempt to refute it, thereby showing it to be invalid. My opponent will use Round 1 to explain his argument. In rounds 2 and 3, I will cross-examine and attempt to refute his/her argument whereas he/she will cross-examine my refutations and defend the argument. Round 4 will be closing statements in which no new contentions will be permitted.

My opponent has the good fortune of having both the first and last word.

Good luck, and let's make this interesting.

EDIT: This debate regards the existence of the Christian God as described in the Westminster Confession of Faith: http://www.reformed.org...

-----

There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.

God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.

In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

-----
theCall

Con

I'm a Christian, but I'll make this a challenge to me, personally, thus it's a real test to me, for my faith and also with you looking for the absolute truth.

Your first introduction was God is all Holy, God is all that, just and things... but your point is that is that God created things, God is full with blessings but there are lots of points that I want to "point" out:

_ Nobody, I say no one can touches, feels or or smells God, the concept of an existence of God cannot be tested by science, or any other way, I would be rather to think about God just like a hypothesis rater than something like a law or a definite being that can be in touch with humanity.

_ God as you're saying is a Christian God I believe, and I also think that you believe in an immortal God that cannot dies nor required to eat, but the Bible states that Jesus the Christ Himself required to eat and He actually died on the cross(though He actually rose back from death.), a big contradiction in the Christian God, while the Bible states that there are no flaws in the Bible, and the Bible is use to teach people and written from God, can an almighty God made a mistake like that?

_ God created the world in 6 days is totally unproven, while we know that this earth had been for millions of years, the Bible and the Qu'ran and the Torah, 3 of these biggest monotheistic religions, all 3 of them are totally said something which very nonsense as God created the world in 6 days. This doctrine about God creation of the world again I say unproven and remained somehow a mystery and unscientific.

_ I believe the acts of God on earth are some how really abnormal and questionable, Christianity believe that the only way to go is through faith, because of that many people had killed other people whom different from their faith like the burning of the witches in the Dark Age(I think so), God in the Bible said that only faith is mandatory, so you don't need a mind to rethink, to check again what you're believing? "Just believe, don't you dare to question anything I said!"?

Those are my arguments, this is my second times to debate, therefore there might be some mistakes in my vocabulary, please don't mind, and for sure, let's me say this again...

"I am a Christian."
Debate Round No. 1
KRFournier

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate. I will respond to each of his points in turn:

REBUTTAL

1. God Cannot Be Tested by Science

My opponent argues that God's existence cannot be verified by the senses or empirically tested. His observation is accurate, but such thinking does not disprove God's existence. Consider the following statement:

Only that which is empirically verified by science is true.

The above statement cannot itself be scientifically tested since it is an abstract assertion. It can only be true if it is false, so it must be false. Therefore, even though God cannot be observed by our physical senses, it does not follow that he does not exist.

2. Immortal God/Mortal Jesus Paradox

My opponent cites an apparent paradox: an immortal God died a mortal death. This argument is simply a misrepresentation of Christian theology. The Christian worldview presupposes dualistic man—that humans are made of two parts: mortal flesh and immortal spirit. [1] There is no paradox in the flesh dying and the spirit living on. Therefore, there is no logical paradox in Christ the Man dying on the cross and Christ the God living on.

The only way for this argument to go any further is to disprove that man and Christ are immortal spirit. Of course, the only way to do this is to philosophically disprove the existence of God. In other words, this argument begs the question. He'll have to win the debate before he can continue with this line of reasoning.

3. 6-Day Creation is Unproven

This argument is simply a non sequitur. The age of the earth does not disprove that it was created. It should be further pointed out that science is unable to empirically verify how the earth was formed. There are theories, to be sure, as the earth's formation can only be hypothesized. Again, my opponent rests all his laurels on the axiom that scientific validation alone brings objective truth. I discredited this presupposition in contention 1.

4. Christians Have Misbehaved

My opponent's final point is merely ad hominem, it argues against the people rather than the ideology. The fact that people have done violent things in the name of Christ gives additional credence to the Christian notion of fallen man, and it most certainly has no bearing on the existence of God in general. My opponent will have to make actual logical connections between the violent behavior of some Christians and the non-existence of God before this contention can even be considered.

CONCLUSION

The debate is over the validity of my opponent's arguments. So far, he has relied on self-refuting axioms, question begging, non sequitur, and ad hominem attacks. I have shown all his contentions to be invalid, so the resolution stands affirmed.

SOURCES:
1. http://www.reformed.org...
theCall

Con

Thank you for your response:

Let me cross all your argument fellow:

"My opponent argues that God's existence cannot be verified by the senses or empirically tested. His observation is accurate, but such thinking does not disprove God's existence. Consider the following statement:

Only that which is empirically verified by science is true.

The above statement cannot itself be scientifically tested since it is an abstract assertion. It can only be true if it is false, so it must be false. Therefore, even though God cannot be observed by our physical senses, it does not follow that he does not exist."

Yes, and so are fairies, Hecules, mermaids, big foots, aliens... Indeed we can't feel them either, but that's not mean those things do not exist, but the percentage is small, not even close to 1%, if we believe mermaids, fairies...are real, then God can't be real, if again God can be real then these fairies can't, look one look at the Bible, you'll see them are just simply some fairy tales with a hint of history which make the Bible simply become more interested.

The sentence "Only that which is empirically verified by science is true." like you said cannot be scientifically tested because it's an abstract assertion, but just because it's just an abstract assertion does not mean it's can be true, fairies, mermaid, and all other mythological creatures may be real, even though they can't be tested, you believe mermaids are real, right? Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.", if your faith is simply so much contradictions with science, I think you should look at and decide whether or not your religion is blind.

"My opponent cites an apparent paradox: an immortal God died a mortal death. This argument is simply a misrepresentation of Christian theology. The Christian worldview presupposes dualistic man—that humans are made of two parts: mortal flesh and immortal spirit. [1] There is no paradox in the flesh dying and the spirit living on. Therefore, there is no logical paradox in Christ the Man dying on the cross and Christ the God living on.

The only way for this argument to go any further is to disprove that man and Christ are immortal spirit. Of course, the only way to do this is to philosophically disprove the existence of God. In other words, this argument begs the question. He'll have to win the debate before he can continue with this line of reasoning."
_ My opponent point clearly is that in Christianity theology, a man has 2 part, the mortal flesh and the immortal spirit, therefore when I stated that it's ridiculous when we say Jesus Christ is God and died a mortal death, my oppoent said it's apparently paradox, but it's an explicit event when Jesus Himself rose back from death,, if it's like what you said, normal for the immortal spirit to live on, then the mortal flesh cannot rise back from death, we should remember that when Jesus rose back from death, people still touch and see Him, He even required to eat, Jesus continue stayed with the disciples for 40 days I believe before He ever went back to Heaven. You're right, for this argument to go further, we need to disprove that man and Christ are immortal spirit, but that's impossible, due to the fact that none of them are immotal spirit, Jesus said in the Bible: "God is the spirit", if God is the only one who has His whold body is immortal spirit, then it's impossible for men are immortal spirit, it should be men have immortal spirits which we call souls.

"6-Day Creation is Unproven

This argument is simply a non sequitur. The age of the earth does not disprove that it was created. It should be further pointed out that science is unable to empirically verify how the earth was formed. There are theories, to be sure, as the earth's formation can only be hypothesized. Again, my opponent rests all his laurels on the axiom that scientific validation alone brings objective truth. I discredited this presupposition in contention 1."

Oh, I think you had misunderstood my idea, my idea in this concept is not either did this earth created or not but my idea was how can God go on and teach people about His little story of creating the earth in 6 days while the oldest rock found in earth was about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago, also before the earth and all the human were even exist, science also found the fossil of the dinosaurs, also the evidences ofthe prehistoric times, while our God there raise up and said: "I created the world in 6 days and the first one I created were human.", a transparent paradox that you ought to look at it.

"Christians Have Misbehaved

My opponent's final point is merely ad hominem, it argues against the people rather than the ideology. The fact that people have done violent things in the name of Christ gives additional credence to the Christian notion of fallen man, and it most certainly has no bearing on the existence of God in general. My opponent will have to make actual logical connections between the violent behavior of some Christians and the non-existence of God before this contention can even be considered."

Oh, that's also not what I meant, but what I meant was that Christianity and other monothestic religions, faith is mandatory, more than mind, because of faith, lots of people not just Christian but also Jews and Muslims had killed people for their God, in the Old Testament I am sure that you'll see lots of violent graphics and pictures that had caused by God or God commanded it.

CONCLUSION:
I am not here to try to win but also to find the truth, more and more this is not what I believe in but I believe through this debate, we'll be able to find out more truths, I respect my opponent, I believe he got more experience in debating than me, wish you with all my luck, and I apologize for the confusion earlier, hope to see your argument soon, amen.
Debate Round No. 2
KRFournier

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for his quick response and willingness to see this debate through.

REBUTTAL

1. God Cannot Be Tested by Science

I honestly cannot make sense of my opponent's first argument in this regard. He says, "if we believe mermaids, fairies...are real, then God can't be real, if again God can be real then these fairies can't." This premise simply is not cogent. It does not follow that if mermaids exist, God does not or vice versa. Furthermore, he offers no reasoning by which to accept this ipse dixit claim.

Matters get worse in his second paragraph when he says, "the sentence ‘Only that which is empirically verified by science is true.' like you said cannot be scientifically tested because it's an abstract assertion, but just because it's just an abstract assertion does not mean it's can be true." I'm not sure what he's saying. I asserted that the epistemological position that only science brings knowledge CAN'T be true because it is self refuting. He does not counter my rebuttal in this regard, and so it stands.

2. Immortal God/Mortal Jesus Paradox

Once again, my opponent argues from a misrepresentation of Christian doctrine. First of all, the bible does not say God is the ONLY spirit. It clearly teaches that man is both flesh and spirit. He is welcome to discredit the Christian Worldview, but to do so will require a formidable argument against God's existence, not a misunderstanding of Christian spirituality.

3. 6-Day Creation is Unproven

Just to make this interesting, I suggest my opponent examine the findings of RATE, a group of Christian scientists that have found major discrepancies in radiometric dating. [1] The source lists three questionable presuppositions regarding radioisotope dating, leaving room for doubt. Even if RATE is not completely accurate in its conclusions, one must concede that without the ability to actually go back in time to verify the age of the earth, it will never be known with complete certainty.

Moreover, the age of the earth does not disprove that it was created. One very logical possibility is the earth is billions of years old AND it was created. Therefore, simply asserting that the earth is old is not enough to disprove God's existence.

4. Christians Have Misbehaved

My opponent continues to offer ad hominem arguments. I will reiterate: the actions of an ideology's adherents do not prove one way or another whether or not that ideology is true or false. Atheists have done horrible things as well, so is atheism necessarily false as a result?

CONCLUSION

My opponent more or less reiterated his earlier arguments albeit with additional flair. Still, I do appreciate his ardent effort to keep this debate alive rather than forfeiting. I look forward to his next set of arguments.

SOURCES:

1. http://www.answersingenesis.org...
theCall

Con

theCall forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
KRFournier

Pro

My opponent has forfeited his round. I extend my arguments and thank all those that have taken time to read this.
theCall

Con

theCall forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Alex 8 years ago
Alex
B/a -Pro, no needed explanation.
C- Pro, for Con taking a debate he agrees with (which is okay) but then forfeited.
S&g- pro, con made noticeable mistakes
arguments-Pro, Cons arguments were not valid in the sense that even if they were right would not prove his nonexistence.
sources- Pro used them while con didn't
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
For the record, I voted myself all 7 points for Con's forfeit.
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
I'm thinking of starting my own debate like this.
Posted by theCall 8 years ago
theCall
wow, I didn't know your speech is that inspiration, I did indeed post my new argument, it's might not be good but at least I tried, thank you.
Posted by theCall 8 years ago
theCall
I'll try, that's why I'm trying to learn more about science, hopefully I can post a new response tomorrow.
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
I don't mind that you tried something new, but at least see it through. Don't simply give up. Did you know that when if at least one round is forfeited in a debate, that it never appears in the list of completed debates on the home page? In other words, you've wasted my time and yours because no one will read this.

No I do not condone euthanasia.
Posted by theCall 8 years ago
theCall
do you root for euthanasia?
Posted by theCall 8 years ago
theCall
because I wanted to try something new, you know, you need to try before you buy
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
Then why accept? *sigh*
Posted by theCall 8 years ago
theCall
You are too good to be a debater, plus this is not really my opinion, I'm a Christian and I'm talking and opposing everything I believe in, therefore I think I should stop this argument, thank you.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Alex 8 years ago
Alex
KRFourniertheCallTied
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 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
KRFourniertheCallTied
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