The Instigator
Pitbull15
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
invisibledeity
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Theism is perfectly valid

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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...
Pitbull15
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,170 times Debate No: 45689
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (5)

 

Pitbull15

Pro

Alright, forget what I said earlier. How would you like to debate someone experienced in defending theism? I think everyone's had enough of your ranting, so I'm going to step forward and challenge you. If you're so cocky, then perhaps you'll consider my challenge. I have the burden of proof in this debate, and you'll try to rebut my arguments.

There are 3 rounds, 2 days to argue, and a voting period of 10 days.
invisibledeity

Con

Want to go another round with me kiddo?

Come on. Lets see a spec of hard evidence that there is a god and that god is anything like your god.

Also, how can you say that a being that would send its own creations for the most sadistic eternal torture be anything but the most vile, sadistic and evil being imaginable!???
Debate Round No. 1
Pitbull15

Pro

I'd actually like to go THREE rounds with you.
First, I don't remember anything in the terms about debating WHICH religion is real, I was just arguing that theism in general is perfectly rational. The subject of which religion, however, needs its own debate.

What I'm going to use for evidence for God is a classic argument used by many theists.

1. The universe had a beginning
2. Therefore, the universe had a cause
3. So, the universe has a beginning and something to cause it

While God cannot be directly observed, a rational case can be made for Him through indirect observation. See, there's evidence that the universe is expanding; so if we trace the process of expansion back, we arrive to the conclusion that the universe was once an extremely dense cosmological singularity. This is what we consider the beginning of the universe. If the universe had a beginning, it must have had some sort of cause. I believe, with the complexity of the universe today, that it must have been the result of an intelligent outside agency. The reason I say this is that if you say there is no God, or no first cause, that would leave you with no other explanation for the beginning of the universe. Because if the universe wasn't caused to begin with, or is infinite, that would create a paradox. We have evidence that the universe has a beginning, and that time and space haven't always been here. So if you say the universe is infinite, you contradict the evidence of the Big Bang; and if you say the universe created itself out of nothing, you ignore the fact that everything that has a beginning must have a cause, as that would imply that there was nothing before the Big Bang. Of course God can't be directly observed; but like I said, a reasonable case can be made for theism by indirect observation. And plus, there would have to be an intelligent agent to, at the very least, initially generate the first codes of information. If that happened, the rest may possible take care of itself for a little bit, but ultimately would need God to help guide such a process and help build the universe. For another example, if you read this argument I'm writing, would you just assume it came from nothing, or would you think that an intelligent agent wrote it? Same goes for artificial intelligence, or computer simulated worlds with AI humans.

And for your last question, we all have free will to decide whether or not to follow Him. I don't know why you're so angry if you don't even believe in Him.

Take it away, Invisibledeity.
invisibledeity

Con

MY response is the same as to ZMIKECUBER!!! You lose!!

Not going to get into the same old which came first, god or the universe argument, Yada Yada!


You have no hard evidence a god exists. If you did, then WHERE IS YOUR NOBEL PRIZE?!?!?

Regardless, I DO NOT put the possibility of an existence of a god or gods at zero (just highly unlikely), and considered myself primarily agnostic until recently.

Even IF there is a god or gods, there is ZERO hard evidence that god or gods concerns itself in human affairs or intervenes the physical world or communicates with humanity in any way. That makes ALL RELIGIONS THE CREATIONS OF PEOPLE!!

So, go ahead and assume there is a god or gods out there. I have no problem with that. What causes problems is when people arrogantly say they know what a god wants, thinks etc.

Lets see:
1. hard evidence a god or god intervenes in human affairs or the physical world in any way
2. hard evidence to prove this god or gods has/have certain characteristics
3. hard evidence this god or gods has/have communicated their thoughts to humanity in any way

If you cannot show hard evidence for the above, you admit all religions are based on pure speculation and the Abrhamic god in particular is a lie created by men.

Can we agree on that point?? If so, go ahead and assume that a god or gods exist. Just admit that it is pure speculation and you have no idea what that god or gods are like even if they do exist and that all religions are the creations of men.
Debate Round No. 2
Pitbull15

Pro

You certainly seem to place the possibility of God at zero. And yes, all religions are the creation of men. But Christians believe that there is no single church that is above all the rest. We only believe in Christ our Savior.

You really love that caps lock button, don't you? And there should be a rule of copying and pasting from your previous debates. If you didn't have a problem with us believing, you wouldn't be ranting about theism's "evils" like you do. And you haven't even taken a stab at refuting my argument, so it stands.
invisibledeity

Con

Call it what you like. It is a simple fact that the Abrahamic god is a ridiculous myth. You are replying without touching that fact!

As long as you let that fact stand, I am cool!

Christianity and all the Abrahamic religions are clearly ridiculous, evil myths. This is proven by their teachings such as saying a god had a child with a virgin earthing to be temporarily tortured to death in a human sacrifice of himself to himself, the idea of original sin and inflicting so much pain and misery over some distant ancestor eating a piece of fruit, the idea of hell and a supposedly just and merciful being sending his own creations for sadistic eternal torture.


Thank you for letting my points stand and admitting that Christianity etc. are ridiculous, man-made lies!
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PeriodicPatriot 3 years ago
PeriodicPatriot
Dude, he's 30.
Posted by Skeptic111 3 years ago
Skeptic111
I have flagged invisiblediety for his insulting remarks. I invite other members to do the same. I feel there is no place for this type of childish misbehaviour on the forum. He is clearly in violation of the forum rules and etiquette, and does prevent good discussion and productive debate. Let's kick him out.
Posted by Pitbull15 3 years ago
Pitbull15
Your head's certainly harder than any evidence, that's for sure.
Posted by invisibledeity 3 years ago
invisibledeity
Blah blah blah, lalala! Word games!!! NO HARD EVIDENCE!!! Where is your NOBEL PRIZE???
Posted by the_streetsurfer 3 years ago
the_streetsurfer
If there was hard proof for God, there wouldn't be religion - it would be a commonly held belief. Religion relies on faith, not facts.
Posted by Pitbull15 3 years ago
Pitbull15
@Skeptic111: Thank you!
And I also admire your respect for religion even though you don't believe it yourself.
And you are right: it's impossible to put a theistic argument in scientific terms ENTIRELY, but combined with religion and philosophy, a case can be made for theism. The way I see it, religion and philosophy offers explanations as to why these thing happen, and science tells us how. And when the two are glued together with logic and reasoning, I believe a rational case for a Creator can be made. And yes, this concept is extremely difficult to fathom, but it's very possible to think and ponder it and come to an educated conclusion. I don't know what lies beyond the leading edge you're talking about, but that's why we have science; so we can keep searching.
Posted by Skeptic111 3 years ago
Skeptic111
I like your argument pitbull..!
And I respect that even if God exists only in the minds of people, that he does exist! So one cannot say that god doesn't exist.
I'm also in my earning privileges period, you would get my vote. I was curious about your scientific argument to support theism. I hadn't heard it before and its very interesting. It's such a difficult debate. Your opponent is not very intellectually engaging except for all caps. And his tone is crude and unsophisticated... so I would also not give him points on conduct.

But I was curious about the expanding Universe, and the beginning as a compressed mass. And that a beginning implies a cause. But I think putting the theistic argument in scientific terms is a difficult battleground. Because... science may not necessarily equipped to describe theism. I am not religious myself, but a curious observer...

Expansion implies a leading edge... what is beyond the leading edge? see these things aren't easy to fathom really. It seems like religion has always been there to describe the unfathomable. And science has been there to present models which explain things in comprehensive terms.
Posted by Pitbull15 3 years ago
Pitbull15
I only challenged him because I need the voting privileges.
Posted by ZaKami 3 years ago
ZaKami
What a troll debater. >.<
Posted by Pitbull15 3 years ago
Pitbull15
I meant you had a point in it needing to be justified as the one true religion. That would deserve its own debate entirely.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
Pitbull15invisibledeityTied
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 was a jerk and didn't use proper S&G at all. He also didn't really make relevant arguments. Also pro used a philosophical argument, which counts as a source in my opinion.
Vote Placed by justin.graves 3 years ago
justin.graves
Pitbull15invisibledeityTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: After much deliberation I have made my decision... about whether I'm going to laugh or cry over this debate. Laugh at the sheer bigoted, angry ranting from Con, or cry that he forced logic and Pro's statements into things they were never supposed to do. If I honestly had to guess, Con has had a tragedy in his life that has caused him much anger. This anger is being taken out on the God he supposedly believes does not exist and those who follow Him. Even though Pro's arguments were fledgling, he did outdo Con's irrational ramblings.
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 3 years ago
zmikecuber
Pitbull15invisibledeityTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were unrefuted by Con. Con was very rude, and overused caps and misspelled words.
Vote Placed by 2Sense 3 years ago
2Sense
Pitbull15invisibledeityTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not really address the main argument. Rather, Con decided to focus on one aspect of the question, which ultimately weakened the argument. Plus, Con's behavior was obnoxiously rude, so points to Pro for conduct.
Vote Placed by TheAntidoter 3 years ago
TheAntidoter
Pitbull15invisibledeityTied
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's premises were uncontested by con, and so his conclusion is valid, even though con tried to hand-waive it away.