The Instigator
saxmastadrew
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
KRFournier
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points

Theism

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,079 times Debate No: 9751
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

saxmastadrew

Con

The Judeo-Christian idea of God as a Father and judge is incorrect, based on several simple facts:

1. The Holy Bible was written by mortal men and, if it were written today, would be criticized and torn down to complete incredibility. Knowing this, its only redeeming factor is its age, but this is true for all other religious texts as well (making us wonder why the Bible is supposedly the most credible). The Bible is no different than any typical myths.

2. There is no proof of God's existence that is not also proof of Atheist or other non-Christian beliefs.

3. The Bible is so self-contradictory that two people who follow it strictly can have radically different viewpoints. The teachings of God are therefore so muddled, the absolute truth of the Bible cannot be reasonably believed.
KRFournier

Pro

I welcome my opponent, saxmastadrew, to www.debate.org and hope he finds this site as enjoyable as I do.

While I respect my opponents' freedom of opinion, I must insist that his opening round, which consists of three "simple facts," are completely unsubstantiated. He offers no evidence or arguments. He simply states these as "facts." I will extend him the benefit of the doubt and assume he intends to corroborate these facts with logical reasoning and/or material evidence in the next round. Until then, there is nothing to refute.

Therefore, I will offer my proof of God's existence using the Transcendental Argument for God's Existence, hereafter referred to as TAG.

First, I will be arguing only for the existence of the Christian God. I do not anticipate my opponent will object since his opening round consists of Judeo-Christian references. As with all my debates on God's existence, I am not content to define god in a single sentence. God is complex and requires a complex definition. Therefore, I refer to the Westminster Confession of Faith [1]:

-----

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.

-----

The proof that the Christian God is this: that without Him, you cannot prove anything. To illustrate this, consider for a moment why we have debates. The goal of debate is to find objective truth. The process of debate usually starts with opposing beliefs, and using various reliable tools, each side justifies their belief. Such tools include logical laws, science, and morality. But what makes these tools reliable? The answer can be found using transcendental argumentation [2].

Transcendental arguments examine something known and, using logical induction, determine the necessary precondition that makes it possible. Propositionally, it looks something like this: P is the necessary precondition for Q; Q, therefore P. With that, I will argue for the necessary preconditions of logic, science, and morality.

For logic to be reliable in debate, it cannot be arbitrary or subject to change. It cannot be found in society, human brain activity, physical energy, or matter, since these things are constantly changing. The only alternative is that logical laws are abstract and absolute. Abstract entities, by necessity, are products of thought. Therefore, the necessary precondition for logic is that there is a transcendent, immutable mind behind them.

For science to be reliable in debate, the laws of the natural universe must be unchanging. Said another way, science presupposes nature is ordered. By necessity, for science to be reliable, nature must always have been ordered from the very beginning. After all, if you accept that the universe was once disordered, it would be irrational to insist that it will never be disordered again. By rational necessity, a universe that was ordered from the very beginning had an ordered mind behind it.

For morality to be reliable in debate, moral obligation must be more than mere arbitrary opinion. For instance, to argue that an all-loving, all-knowing God cannot exist given the existence of Evil, it is necessary that Evil be real and objective. Like logic, objective morality must be abstract and immutable. Thus, the necessary precondition for objective morality is a transcendent, immutable, benevolent mind.

Only Christian Theism, as a worldview, presupposes the exact mind necessary to account for all the preconditions concluded above. Atheism, as a worldview, cannot account for these preconditions, and must either abandon logic, science, and morality as reliable or borrow the presuppositions of a conflicting worldview. In short, the only way my opponent can even hope to prove--using logic, science, or morality--that theism is false is if he is wrong.

TAG is a bit more in depth than this, but this is an adequate summary to initiate dialog. I invite my opponent to show why TAG is not valid argument. I also look forward to any evidence and reason he plans to contribute towards his opening round claims.

SOURCES
1. http://www.reformed.org...
2. http://www.iep.utm.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
saxmastadrew

Con

saxmastadrew forfeited this round.
KRFournier

Pro

My opponent has failed to make an appearance. His opening round contains unsubstantiated claims whereas my arguments remain unanswered. I extend my first round into this round as is.
Debate Round No. 2
saxmastadrew

Con

saxmastadrew forfeited this round.
KRFournier

Pro

My opponent did not make an appearance to substantiate his opening claims or to refute my counter arguments. Please vote Pro. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
Booo!
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Lame. Votes to Pro.
Posted by KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
Well, this was rather disappointing.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
KRF - Why don't you take it? I would, but just debated the same thing about 2 days ago.
Posted by Freeman 7 years ago
Freeman
saxmastadrew, if you change the resolution from theism to deism then I will take this.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
I bit premature, even for you, Panda. I'd expect a debater of your caliber would at least recognize the fact that there isn't even an argument in his opening round.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Con is win
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
saxmastadrewKRFournierTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
saxmastadrewKRFournierTied
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: F.F.
Vote Placed by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
saxmastadrewKRFournierTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
saxmastadrewKRFournierTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
saxmastadrewKRFournierTied
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:07