The Instigator
socialpinko
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Green_Man
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

There is no evidence for the existence of a supreme deity.

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  
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: 2/20/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,046 times Debate No: 14869
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (4)

 

socialpinko

Pro

I will argue that there has not been any evidence to make believe in a supreme deity intellectually acceptable.

Supreme:greatest in status or authority or power; "a supreme tribunal"

Deity: A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers, often called in some religions as a God.

Evidence:that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

There have been many arguments which allegedly show that a god or supreme being exists. I will show that not one of these arguments has any logical validation.

A The argument form revelation
This is what the majority of religions are based on. However, revelation is nowhere near that of fact or evidence. I can come around and say that god told me that white people are the supreme race but that is by no means external evidence for god's existence or the alleged supremacy of caucasian people. I have brought no evidence to the table and therefore people may discard my revelations. It is mere hearsay and no one is in any way obliged to believe what I say

B Argument from miracles or testimony
These arguments go like "Jesus performed miracles so he must have been divine" Penn and Teller also perform alleged miracles that you could say imply divinity. Just because you cannot explain how something is done does not mean that it is magic or something. This also ties in with the argument form testimony. People say that they have experienced god or have seen an angel appear before them. There have also been people who have reported being abducted by aliens and probed by them. If one person reports seeing the god of christianity and another reports seeing the god of islam then who are we to believe. Again, there has been no external evidence brought to the table.

C Argument from the majority
People like to say that since most people in the world are christian then that means their claims must have validity. This by no means implies that they have any point believing in a god. A few hundred years ago the majority of people believed that leeches applied to the skin could cure diseases and that other races were somehow inferior. Does this mean that any of those claims are true?

While there are hundreds of reasons that people say they believe in god, space only allows me to put a few. If anyone has any good reasons why god exists then I will be glad to disprove them.
Green_Man

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate. It should be interesting, and I hope that we benefit from each other’s ideas.

I accept all definitions given by my opponent.

_________________________

First, I will refute my opponent’s claims.

A The argument from revelation

My opponent argues that revelations cannot be taken into account because there is no proof to support them (“I have brought no evidence to the table and therefore people may discard my revelations.”). This is true. However, there have been revelations that do, in fact, have proof. For example, the Our Lady of Fatima revelation. Three shepherd children reported that the Blessed Virgin Mary had appeared to them. As early as July 1917 it was claimed that the Virgin Mary had promised a miracle for the last of her apparitions on 13 October, so that all would believe. [1] This claim was greatly ridiculed by Portuguese journalists, until on 13 October, 1917 the Miracle of the Sun occurred. This was witnessed by thousands of people from various backgrounds, including some of the Portuguese journalists. There have been many statements written about it. [2] Whether or not the Miracle of the Sun was a meteorological event or not, the children still somehow predicted it, thus proving that they did have some sort of revelation. To summarize, my opponent is correct in saying that a claim without proof is mere hearsay, but there are revelations that actually do have proof, so his argument is invalid.

B Argument from miracles or testimony

The pro argues that just because how something is done is unexplained does not mean that it implies divinity. Again, he is correct in this statement. The problem is, when something (for simplicity I will refer to it as a miracle) is not humanly possible there must be some other factor that made it possible. My opponent used the example of Jesus’ miracles. Jesus, unlike Penn and Teller, did things that were not and are not physically possible (such as healing the sick through touch and even raising people from the dead), and there are multiple accounts of these miracles [3]. While I cannot explain how Penn and Teller do their tricks, it can be explained (and they do explain how to do some of their tricks). The miracles done by Jesus were not possible through human means, and thus required some sort of divinity. The pro’s argument on testimony is near identical to his argument on revelation (they both say that without proof, a person’s claim to divine revelation cannot be considered true), and so I direct him back to my response to his earlier argument, that there has been external evidence brought to the table. His claim is, again, incorrect.

C Argument from the majority

I agree with the pro that a majority belief does not prove for certain that a god exists. However, just because it does not prove the existence of god does not mean that it disproves it either. Stated simply, this claim neither proves nor disproves that a divine being is possible.

I would like to point out that my opponent states that “while there are hundreds of reasons that people say they believe in god, space only allows me to put a few” even though he did not even use half of his available 8,000 characters. This indicates that he could not think of rebuttals to other arguments for the existence of god.

_________________________

I now will list reasons that there is evidence for the existence of a deity. My arguments will be organized the same way my opponent’s were.

A Morality

Without a supreme deity, where could morality come from? All humans have been born with morals, as shown in the Illustrations of the Tao by C.S. Lewis. In this, Lewis shows that cultures all throughout history, all over the world even agree on the same basic moral principles. [4] If these principles were made up by man, why don’t they differ? Sure, even Lewis agrees that morals differ on the finer points, but the basic principles (such as not to kill, to respect parents, etc.), are all the same, throughout history and throughout the world. I invite my opponent to read the moral argument [5] and I quote:

“If the moral argument can be defended against the various objections that have been raised against it, then it proves the existence of an author of morality, of a being that has authority over and that actively rules over all creation…this would give us proof that there is a perfect, necessary, and eternal being that created the universe with life in mind and has the authority to tell us how we are to run it. The correct response to this would be to seek God’s will and to practice it.”

So, morality proves that there must be a supreme divine being.

B Creation

There are multiple reasons why creation must come, eventually, to some supreme being. St. Thomas Aquinas listed five in his “Reasons in Proof of the Existence of God” [6]. The simplest among these are the unmoved mover and the chain of creation arguments. Because for something to be in motion it must have, at one point, been moved, this chain eventually will end up with the supreme mover that has not been moved by anything – god. Similarly, everything must have, at one point, been created except for the one thing that created everything. A table was created by a carpenter, the carpenter by his parents, them by their parents, etc. until you reach something that was not created but created everything – a supreme being. Thus, the existence of a deity is required for the existence of anything else.

C It is impossible to disprove a deity

The non-existence of a god cannot be proven, as one cannot prove a universal negative. [7] So, the pro will lose the debate due to the fact that he is trying to prove something that simply cannot be proven.

Note: In source [7] there are more examples of well publicized miracles done by Jesus.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://www.newadvent.org...

[4] http://www.columbia.edu...

[5]http://nitaaiveda.com...

[6] http://www.fordham.edu...

[7] http://www.allaboutcreation.org...

_________________________

Again, I thank my opponent for this debate and wish him luck. I await his response.


Debate Round No. 1
socialpinko

Pro

A- The Argument from Revelation

Oh. I didn't know that the only way to explain predictions was to attribute them to god. We can predict the exact course of the revolution of the Earth to within mere centimeters and you don' see me going around saying the only way to predict that is if god told me. Saying that god is the only explanation is intellectually lazy at best.

B-The argument from Miracles or Testimony

" Jesus, unlike Penn and Teller, did things that were not and are not physically possible" The reports of the alleged miracles of Jesus were written decades after his death. You could say that Penn and Teller shooting each other and allegedly catching the bullets in their mouths is humanly impossible. But even if they did this and a group of people wrote, decades after their death, that their tricks were divinely inspired you would not expect anyone to believe you would you? Please bring evidence that Jesus actually did miracles. And a collection of books written decades after his death does not count as external evidence.

And yes I said that space would not allow me to provide all the reasons people believe in god and I am right about that. However, I should have also said that if you would like to bring any arguments for the existence of god I will be happy to disprove them. After all, the burden of evidence is on you.

Moral Argument

I don't know if you recognize the truth of evolution or not. I'm actually debating someone right now who tries to deny the validity of macro evolution. Evolution is the great creator of morality. As social animals our ancestors needed to get along with each other. The chimps who could get along with their peers had a greater chance of finding a mate to reproduce with. So, slowly but surely more of the chimps who didn't kill others reproduced versus the ones who could not get along with others. Obviosely, there are still those who believe in killing, just look at the military or sociopaths, but those have other explanations. Your moral arguments again brings no external evidence for the existence of a god. And it' kind of funny. I assume that you are a Christian and your argument simply points to an author of morality. Even if your argument made sense, why does it not point to the Muslim god or the Hindu god. You said that all cultures agree on the same basic principles. Just something to think about.

Creation

This is the funniest argument. Supernaturalists say that everything needs a cause and that cause is god but when questioned about god's cause, they say that he's an exception. If that is so then your axiom that everything needs a cause falls apart.

Impossibility of Disproving Existence

You say it is impossible to disprove the existence of your deity. However, you make dozens of claims(noah's ark, resurection, ascension into heaven) and since you have yet to prove these assertions true, I have the right not to take their truth on blind faith. If you were to debate that I am not the creator and governor of the universe, according to your argument, you cannot disprove me regardless of all the evidence pointing to the negative. In that case why are you not agnostic in regard to my alleged holiness?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

All obey the holy word of god!
Green_Man

Con

I ask my opponent to watch his conduct. After a quick review of his profile, I found that another similar debate was forfeited due to his lack of appropriate conduct. Saying things like "This is the funniest argument" and sarcastic comments do not make you look smart, you just look insensitive and rude.

_________________________
In response to my opponent's arguments:

A The argument from revelation
"We can predict the exact course of the revolution of the Earth to within mere centimeters and you don' see me going around saying the only way to predict that is if god told me" Of course people don't claim that god told them this because god obviously did not tell them. It was measured by humans, and so it is attributed to science. The difference is that this incident was claimed by shepherd children who obviously could not have scientifically predicted this, and yet their predictions were spot-on. If it was so scientifically provable, why wasn't there any scientific prediction besides the children who were told through a revelation? Saying that god is the explanation is not intellectually lazy, it is intellectually rational.

B The argument from miracles or testimony
My opponent seems to think that because the earliest accounts of Jesus were written decades after his death makes these not count as "external evidence". First, the earliest record was a mere five years after his death, not decades. I also ask my opponent if he believes in what Alexander the Great's actions. The earliest biography of Alexander the Great was written four hundred years after his death [1], so why do you say that just because a source is not written at the exact time it would have happened makes it invalid? What Penn and Teller have done are mere tricks and stunts that they even admit have explanations, but Jesus' actions do not have any human explanation and thus require a divinity. My opponent asked for evidence that Jesus did miracles, and I supplied it in round 1 (see source [3], round 1).

C The argument from majority.
My opponent makes no rebuttal to this, and so he accepts my response. So, this argument should simply be thrown out, as it does not help or harm either of us.“And yes I said that space would not allow me to provide all the reasons people believe in god and I am right about that. However, I should have also said that if you would like to bring any arguments for the existence of god I will be happy to disprove them. After all, the burden of evidence is on you.”

My opponent tries to prove his statement by just repeating it. However, I will not get caught up on this - I just wanted to point it out.

_________________________
I will now defend my own arguments:

Moral Argument
My opponent attempts to make me recognize the truth of evolution, yet his only support to it is that he says it’s true. Because there is no support given for his claim of evolution, his argument is simply invalid. My opponent claims that animals who got along had a greater chance to find a mate, so evolution writes morality. This is just false. Animals actually fight each other for dominance to find a mate [2], so why isn’t morality just a “bigger is better” policy? “Slowly but surely more of the chimps who didn't kill others reproduced versus the ones who could not get along with others” – no, the chimps who did kill or fight others found mates while the ones who were killed or beaten obviously did not. So, morality could not have just developed through evolution because fighting is good for survival, but not good for the moral principles everyone agrees on. If I killed everyone I encountered it would be “survival of the fittest”, but it would not be moral. My opponent argues that my point of morality does not prove anything by simply saying “your moral arguments again brings no external evidence for the existence of a god”, but does not give any reasoning for why not. He simply ignored my argument, and so concedes and thus found nothing wrong with it. To respond to his claim that I am Christian – I am not. I am agnostic, just check my profile. I am playing a sort of devil’s advocate here simply because I enjoy debating religion, and for the sake of this debate my argument (which you did not prove did not make sense, again - you need support for your claim) could point to the Muslim god or a Hindu deity, I just have to prove that there is in fact a deity of some sort to win.


Creation
My opponent misunderstood my argument. I argued that everything needs a cause except for the supreme deity. So, god does not have a cause (he is the “unmoved mover”). Everything was created by something else, except for the one thing that created everything – a supreme deity.


Impossibility of Disproving Existence
My opponent says that I made dozens of claims, yet I did not, and my opponent can reject their truth as we are not even debating them. You cannot prove a universal negative, so I guess you would be correct in saying that I could not, for certain, prove that you are not holy. I can, however, prove an affirmative – that there is a supreme being, and I have done so in this debate. Either way, the pro will lose the debate on the ground that he is trying to prove something that is not provable.

In response to my opponent’s quote from Leviticus, I see no relation whatsoever to the debate. We are not discussing laws, we are debating whether a deity exists.
_________________________
Thank you. Good luck to the pro and I await his response.

[1] http://www.asktheatheists.com...

[2] http://www.bookrags.com...


Debate Round No. 2
socialpinko

Pro

The argument from miracles or testimony
If someone were to write of george washington after his death that he could fly and had nine feetwould that in any way count as external evidence? no. you actually have to bring some evidence to the table. an account of something does not necessarily count as evidence. i could write a book stating that I have laser vision but any one would stil ask me to bring evidence to the table.

I apologize for not providing evidence as to the truth of macro evolution and evolution as the creator of morality. Please allow me to show you now.

Evolution

Vestigial Structures: A structure in an organism that has lost all or most of its original function in the course of evolution. The existence of vestigial organs can be explained in terms of changes in the environment or modes of life of the species. As an organisms environment changes, so some anatomical structures, through evolution, either lose all functionality or serve some new purpose.
Examples:
the human appendix
male nippples
sexual organs in dandelions
wisdom teeth
The Blind Fish- Astyanax Mexicanus
the coccyx
hind leg bones in whales
wings on flightless birds
hind wings in flies
leaves of parasitic plants

fossil evidence:The totality of fossilized artifacts and their placement within the earth's rock strata. It provides information about the history of life on earth, for instance what the organisms look like, where and when they live, how they evolved, etc. It is possible to find out how a particular group of organisms evolved by arranging its fossil records in a chronological sequence. Such a sequence can be determined because fossils are mainly found in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is formed by layers of silt or mud on top of each other; thus, the resulting rock contains a series of horizontal layers, or strata. Each layer contains fossils which are typical for a specific time period during which they were made. The lowest strata contain the oldest rock and the earliest fossils, while the highest strata contain the youngest rock and more recent fossils.
Examples:
Evolution from dinosaurs to birds
Pedopenna 168 to 140 mya
Anchiornis 155 mya
Archaeopteryx 150 to 145 mya
Confuciusornis 120 mya
Eoalulavis 115 mya
Ichthyornis 93 to 75 mya

EVolution of humans
Apidium 36 to 32 mya
Aegyptopithecus33 mya
Proconsul 27 to 14 mya
Pierolapithecus 13 mya
Ardipithecus 4.4 mya
Australopithecus 4.4 to 2 mya
Homo habilis 2.5 to 1.5 mya
Homo erectus 2 to 1 mya
'Archaic' sapiens 500,000 ka to present

Paleontologists are able to date how old fossils are by measuring the half life's of radioactive isotopes that are given off by a fossil.

Evidence of natural selection in the lab
The development and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria, like the spread of pesticide resistant forms of plants and insects is evidence for evolution of species, and of change within species. Thus the appearance of vancomycin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and the danger it poses to hospital patients is a direct result of evolution through natural selection. The rise of Shigella strains resistant to the synthetic antibiotic class of sulfonamides also demonstrates the generation of new information as an evolutionary process.[73] Similarly, the appearance of DDT resistance in various forms of Anopheles mosquitoes, and the appearance of myxomatosis resistance in breeding rabbit populations in Australia, are all evidence of the existence of evolution in situations of evolutionary selection pressure in species in which generations occur rapidly.

I sincerely hope that this is enough evidence of macro evolution for you. If it is not then I will be happy to provide more.

Evolution of morality
Altruism is a well-documented animal behaviour, which appears most obviously in kin relationships but may also be evident amongst wider social groups, in which an animal sacrifices its own well-being for the benefit of another animal.
Examples:
Walruses have been seen adopting orphans who lost their parents to predators.
Dolphins support sick or injured animals, swimming under them for hours at a time and pushing them to the surface so they can breathe.
Wolves and wild dogs bring meat back to members of the pack not present at the kill.
Most mammal carnivores like wolves or dogs have a habit of not harming pack members below certain age, of opposite sex or in surrendering position (in case of some animals, the behavior exists within entire species rather than one pack).
Vampire bats commonly regurgitate blood to share with unlucky or sick roost mates that have been unable to find a meal, often forming a buddy system.

The emerging fields of evolutionary biology and in particular sociobiology have demonstrated that, though human social behaviors are complex, the precursors of human morality can be traced to the behaviors of many other social animals

Creation
It is not considered evidence to provide an axiom that everything needs a cause except for this one guy. You have not shown external evidence that god does not need a cause. You have also not disproven theories that the universe is simply cyclic and that the big bang was not the beginning but was a rebirth. so you have not even provided evidence that everything needs a beginning.

Impossibility of disproving existence
Your claims have not been backed up by sufficient external evidence as I have shown, therefore it may be assumed that they are false. Just like you may assume that I am not holy because I have not brought you any evidence of my holiness.

http://en.wiktionary.org...
http://www.livescience.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.biology-online.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au...
http://www.str.org...
Green_Man

Con

I assume that this round was the last round for bringing up arguments, as the last rounds are usually reserved for voters, so I wish my opponent good luck and commend him on his arguments.

First, I’d like to point out that my opponent did not make a response to my argument concerning “revelation” and did not refute my claims of attributing revelations to god being intellectually rational, so therefore concedes that and agrees.

_________________________

I respond to the pro’s sole argument that is still in question:

The argument from miracles or testimony
My opponent says that anyone could write a book about a complete lie and this would not be considered evidence. My opponent is again correct, but there are differences. First, as I have said in my earlier rounds, there are multiple eye-witnesses and writings from people with various backgrounds that all talk about the miracles done by Jesus. You writing about how you have laser vision would be you, a non credible source, stating something that no one else supports. Because Jesus had numerous eye-witnesses and multiple sources that back up his miracles, his miracles are proven to be historically accurate. Yours, on the other hand, would have no support and thus could not be counted as evidence. So, an account of an event does actually count as external evidence because there is plenty of reasoning and proof to back it up. I’d also like to point out that no sources have been found contradicting the gospels [1], and this even more reinforces their validity.

_________________________

I will defend my arguments:

My opponent’s claim to macro evolution is that because species are changing, this means that they are evolving. “As an organisms environment changes, so some anatomical structures, through evolution, either lose all functionality or serve some new purpose.” My opponent is incorrect in saying species are changing through macro evolution. Variation, or microevolution, does occur, but this in no way proves that macroevolution happens. Bacteria, no matter how much it varies over centuries, will always be bacteria, and thus evolution in the sense of new species developing is just incorrect. [2] I agree with my opponent: species vary and adapt to respond to their environment, but this does not make them new species altogether. So, his argument of macro evolution is actually an argument for microevolution, and it falls. However, as we are not exactly debating evolution, I will leave it at that.


Morality

My opponent argues that morality is just a form of altruism – that we should have a “selfless concern for the welfare of others.” [3] In C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity (Book 1 Chapter 2), he objects to this type of “herd instinct”. [4] He states: “We all know what it feels like to be prompted by instinct… we sometimes do feel just that sort of desire to help another person: and no doubt that desire is due to the herd instinct. But feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not…” I will not quote all of Lewis’ argument, but invite the pro and the voters to read it. Essentially his claim is that instincts (such as ones of helping others in animals) are not equal to the moral law. He uses the example of a man who sees another drowning. If his morality were based truly on instinct (like animals) he would either stay away for self-preservation or help the victim. But humans find, in addition to impulse, a third thing that tells you that you ought to help – this is morality. So, morality is not equal to the actions of social animals. As Lewis puts it, “You might as well say that the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys.” [4] This connects to my overall argument because if morality, as I have shown, is not merely animal-like instinct, then it must come from something else – a supreme being.

Creation

God does not need a cause because it is within the definition of god: “the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.” [5] The important word of the definition is “the” – as in the creator, or the one who creates but was not created. If god creates everything (or the universe), how could he have a creator? He can't, so god does not need one. A carpenter is a creator, a parent is a creator, but everything but the creator needs to be created from something. Everything needs a beginning – this is obvious. Where would anything come from if it was not somehow created (except for a supreme being, as I just pointed out)? My opponent said I have not “disproven theories that the universe is simply cyclic and that the big bang was not the beginning but was a rebirth”, yet he himself does not give any reasoning that they are what he says. So, because this brief argument has no support, it can simply be thrown out.

Impossibility of disproving existence

My opponent is right in what he says, but misses the point of this section of my argument. It is for the voters to decide who has better evidence/arguments, so I will let them choose. However, my point is that because you are trying to prove that “there is no evidence for the existence of a supreme deity”, you cannot win. I can prove an affirmative, and thus disprove a negative by proving that affirmative. However, you cannot reinforce a negative and disprove the affirmative. In your example, I can assume that you are unholy because of lack of evidence, but technically I cannot prove it. By saying “no evidence”, you stated that no evidence ever is given for existence of a supreme deity, and this is just impossible to prove. So, as I have said before, the pro will lose because he cannot do what it is his job in this debate to do.

_________________________

I assume round four will be reserved for voters. So, I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this topic. It was very interesting, and I wish him luck.


[1] http://carm.org...

[2] http://www.newgeology.us...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] http://www.pbs.org...

[5] http://dictionary.reference.com...


Debate Round No. 3
socialpinko

Pro

I am sorry that I did not make a response to your argument from revelation. I must however point out that much like the argument from majority, we are at a standstill with this one. You cannot prove how the sheperd boys allegedly gained their information. You have not proven that they learned it form god and I have not proven that they did not get the information from god.

The argument from miracle or testimony
There have been many books and pamphlets and eye witness testimonies claiming that people have been abducted and anally probed by aliens. Most of these people come from very diverse backgrounds and most have no reason to lie about their supposed experiences. However, just because they reported something does not mean that they have brought external evidence to the table. Many people have written that people of different races are inferior. Just look at Mein Kampf. These people certainly are not lying but that does not mean that they are right or that they have brought any external evidence to light.

Evolution
If you would look again you would see that I also listed several examples of intermediary fossils from reptiles to birds, showing that macro evolution does in fact take place. However, since I guess you didn't see that I will post a few more here.

These are intermediary fossils showing invertrebates evolving into fish, showing maroevolution.
Invertebrate to fish:
Pikaia
Conodont
Haikouichthys
Arandaspis
Birkenia
Guiyu

Amphibians to reptiles:
Westlothiana
Proterogyrinus
Limnoscelis
Tseajaia
Solenodonsaurus
Hylonomus
Paleothyris

Hopefully this will adequately prove to you the truth of macro evolution.

Morality
You have by no means shown that altruism and morality are different. You have brought no external evidenceto prove your claim.

Creation
Again, you have shown no evidence that god is the creator of anything. You merely play with semantics and make the definition fit your theory.

Disproving Existence
If you would read the resolution it does not say that I have to prove that god does not exist, I only have to prove that no sufficient evidence has been brought that would make belief justified. You have brought what you think is evidence and I have in my own opinion disproven it. It will be up to the voter to decide though.

Thank you for this debate and I wish you the best of luck.
Green_Man

Con

In response to my opponent’s claims:

Argument from revelation

My opponent says we are at a standstill, but we simply are not. The shepherd children claimed that there source of knowledge for the miracle of the sun was god or a supreme deity of some sort, and the pro has given no evidence or reasoning for why they should not be trusted. So, because the children were proven to be reliable in their claim that a miracle will happen, their claim on how they obtained that information must too be considered reliable (unless evidence was given that it should not, but this is not the case). So, my opponent’s argument here falls.

Argument from miracle or testimony

The pro says that many books and pamphlets have been written, yet does not cite or reference a single one. Because his claim that “there have been many books and pamphlets and eye witness testimonies claiming that people have been abducted and anally probed by aliens. Most of these people come from very diverse backgrounds and most have no reason to lie about their supposed experiences” has nothing to support it, it is simply invalid and can be ignored. Books concerning racial inferiority are a matter of opinion, as it is someone’s opinion that, for example, Jews and gypsies are less human than others. Books written about events can actually be taken as real, external evidence, but you are right, opinionated books cannot always be. “These people certainly are not lying but that does not mean that they are right or that they have brought any external evidence to light.” Correct, but these people are not stating concrete truths or events – they are stating ideas and opinions. The pro keeps attacking my claim that historical references are not evidence, but then I ask, what is? If historical references from non-biased groups and people are not allowed to be considered then I do not know how anyone could possibly use evidence from something that happened in the past. The pro cannot just discount evidence because he thinks that there is some possibility of them being incorrect even though I have shown them to be valid and accurate – he must first prove why they would be incorrect (most likely through demonstrating that those who wrote them were bias or contradictory).

I will not respond to his claim on evolution as I am busy and do not want to spend the time. Even if he is correct, it really does not affect this debate.

_________________________

I now defend my claims

Morality

My opponent attempts to take down my rebuttal simply by stating “You have by no means shown that altruism and morality are different. You have brought no external evidence to prove your claim.” In Round three, I actually did show the clear difference between altruism (or the instinct to help others) and morality. My evidence was C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity. The pro cannot refute an argument by just saying that it doesn’t prove anything – he has to show why or how it doesn’t prove anything. So the pro concedes this.

Creation

Once again, my opponent tries to dismantle my claim by simply saying that I have not shown anything. I did in fact show something – that the definition of god shows that he does not need a creator and that he creates everything. I did not make the definition fit my theory, I quoted it exactly from dictionary.com, as was cited. Again, my opponent lacks reasoning behind his argument. Because the pro did not take down my argument of everything needing a creator except for something that inevitably created everything, and because I showed that a supreme deity would be that thing and therefore must exist, I win this argument.

Impossibility of disproving existence

The pro is correct, the voters will decide if I have brought sufficient evidence to win this debate.

_________________________

Voters:

Who had better conduct? I will let voters decide.

Who had better spelling and grammar? I will let voters decide.

Who made more convincing arguments? Vote Con. It is clear that I have won this due to my opponent’s inability to respond to my claims in a factually-based, non-opinionated manner and his inability to defend his own arguments, which I have taken down.

Who used the most reliable sources? My opponent had many claims that were not backed up by sources, so I urge Con. However, the voters can decide for themselves.

_________________________

I thank my opponent for what has been a very interesting debate, and wish him luck in the voting rounds.

Thank you.


Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by batman1200 6 years ago
batman1200
well i will eventually post my vote
Posted by Green_Man 6 years ago
Green_Man
The voting period does not end for this debate.
Posted by batman1200 6 years ago
batman1200
when does voting end?
Posted by batman1200 6 years ago
batman1200
i know that you won, but i can't vote yet
Posted by Green_Man 6 years ago
Green_Man
It appears that after all that work and debating from the both of us, we will get no votes at all to decide who won...
Posted by batman1200 6 years ago
batman1200
sorry socialpinko, but I think, with good reason, that you are very bad at debating, picking friends, and choosing morals
Posted by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
I forgot to post my sources for the evolutionary transitional fossils.
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by Green_Man 6 years ago
Green_Man
To KikoSanchez182,

I use formalities when I debate for a few reasons. First, it is simply polite. I do not want to come across as rude. Second, a section of the voting process is conduct, and I do not plan to lose a point simply because of the way I say something, not what I say. I want my arguments judged, not my speech.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Philosophical debates are based in logic... and even in that case, Pro still has the burden of proof. The one who makes an assertion has the burden of proof, and in this case it is Pro.
Posted by KikoSanchez182 6 years ago
KikoSanchez182
Formal debates are far too strung up on rules. Look at it as a philosophical debate, not some school debate where every little piece must fit perfectly and every opener says "thank you opponent, hi audience" blah blah blah. Just let them debate and don't get strung up on the formality of it all.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by bradshaw93 6 years ago
bradshaw93
socialpinkoGreen_ManTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Both could have done better but I think Pro won slightly.
Vote Placed by anarcholibertyman 6 years ago
anarcholibertyman
socialpinkoGreen_ManTied
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: Cancelling obvious votebomb by Reformed Arsenal. I've seen this on a few of pinko's debates.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
socialpinkoGreen_ManTied
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: Strong presentation by Con.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
socialpinkoGreen_ManTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is immature and rude, losing the conduct vote. He does not fulfill his burden of proof to prove the resolution so he loses arguments. Con uses sources, pro does not.