The Instigator
Mikal
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
Inductivelogic
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

There is no factual evidence to support a Christian 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 995 times Debate No: 35685
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (6)

 

Mikal

Pro

Round 1 : I would prefer if Con when straight into his core points, as to why he believes there is factual evidence to support Christ

Round 2 : This will be confrontation and rebuttals along with establishing and rebuilding previous points

Round 3 : More rebuttals and our closing statements
Inductivelogic

Con

There is alot of factuall evidence to support a Chrsitian God. I believe all the stories in the bible line history. In addtion to that science and evolution can Go hand in hand.
Debate Round No. 1
Mikal

Pro

This debate has already go off topic. Cons opening remark states " the bible lines up with history". The topic is not whether or not the bible is historically accurate( I do however have a debate for that exact topic lol), it is whether or not there is evidence to support a God. He then states Science and evolution can go hand in hand. Some Christians believe this to be true, but again my opponent has not offered any evidence to support the topic at hand.

I guess I bear the burden of truth, and will start by saying that the existence of the universe can be proven without a God.

We know this by a the string theory and theory of a multiverse. This states that there are alternative universes. It also states that when there is no physical matter at all, particles can actually be created by having an adverse effect.

http://www.nucleares.unam.mx...

Also we know how we can to exist, and this is through the theory of evolution. Where as my opponent stated, some Christians believe that religion and science can go hand in hand, that is still not evidence to support a God. That is filling the gap and making a hypothesis. Because science can not explain everything yet, God can. This is an assumption and not showing anything to support the theory he claims to advocate
Inductivelogic

Con

The bible lining up with history is a point for a God. It can show us how history supports the bible.

Also the multiverse theory that you speak of, as you said is a theory. Scientists believe that there is more galaxies than our on. Who is to not say God is in one of those galaxies. Evolution also is a theory, but it does not show us why we exist. God can explain that.
Debate Round No. 2
Mikal

Pro

Again my opponent has offered up no evidence to support his claims. He claims the bible can prove the existence of God. The bible can not prove the existence of God, even if it his historically accurate. That would merely show us that some of the bible lines up with history, which still offers no proof of an all powerful creator.

He then states that scientist believe in the different galaxies, and questions if God is in one of those galaxies. Where as this is a theory, again there is no factual evidence to support his claim. He is operating off of assumption.

He then states that God would give us purpose in life. Which if there was a God this could be a viable argument, assuming there is one. That is why this debate is about proving the existence of a God, not arguing that a deity would give us a purpose.

In conclusion I believe Con has offered no argument or sources to show evidence of a divine creator. He has merely argued from person opinion.

I have stated how evolution explains how we can be where we are, that the string theory is a viable and accepted theory within the scientific community, and also combated each of my opponents statements. I believe I have presented more sound argument and sources and my opponent has failed to prove proof of a God
Inductivelogic

Con

In turn he has shown no iron clad evidence there is not a God. He has shown ways that explain the existence of humans without a God, but has not disproven a God.

Without evidence to show there is not a God, we can still assume there is one
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
Shadowguynick
I don't understand why Mikal would have had BOP. The debate was about the fact that there was no factual evidence. Of course he wouldn't put any evidence, that would be Con's job. Con needed to provide evidence, and pro would need to disprove said evidence.
Posted by Inductivelogic 3 years ago
Inductivelogic
I am real and I did not go into detail because i feel that he did not meet the requirements. He had the BOP, and established no evidence that in fact there is no God. I am atheist myself as well, I just wanted to take the debate out of fun.
Posted by Luisthebraziliancowboy 3 years ago
Luisthebraziliancowboy
*con
Posted by Luisthebraziliancowboy 3 years ago
Luisthebraziliancowboy
BoP is on you. However, con was completely awful at this and you win. I don't think com is an actual person.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
The only way I would have to bear the burden of proof in this type of discussion is if I stated there where no God. When you take the stand that there is no way to prove the existence of a God, it is very difficult to own the BOP. Even with Con saying that he accepts this, he is accepting and acknowledging that he as admitting the existence of one. My job is to show that there is no factual evidence to support, but in a way that is erroneous. You are correct, I also can bear the BOP and show that there is no factual evidence to support this. I am assuming, that this statement speaks for itself.

I can debate it either way. If con wishes to just offer purely rebuttals that is fine as well, but I am assuming he will have to build his own case in turn.
Posted by Jegory 3 years ago
Jegory
I don't see why you're giving CON the BoP here. The resolution is that there is NO evidence, so it is your responsibility to show there is no evidence for God.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
MikalInductivelogicTied
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: Con didn't refute any of pro's claims. This was easy to judge.
Vote Placed by Jegory 3 years ago
Jegory
MikalInductivelogicTied
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: Arguments: CON had no real depth in his arguments, so this point to PRO. Sources: PRO used a source. Sources: PRO used a source; CON used none.
Vote Placed by MisterDeku 3 years ago
MisterDeku
MikalInductivelogicTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was all over the place. Pro is right to point out that Con derailed the round from the beginning, but he gets off track as well when he talks about string theory and Christian beliefs. Pro never really shows that there is no proof, but there isn't one pointed out in this round either so Pro ends up winning. I'm also giving Pro conduct since Con derailed the debate.
Vote Placed by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
Shadowguynick
MikalInductivelogicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made better arguments, and Con failed to introduce any evidence of a god. He also did not provide sources to prove there is a god, and he also did not explain how the bible lining up with history being evidence for god. He also had some spelling, and gramatical errors. Conduct was about the same though.
Vote Placed by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
MikalInductivelogicTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I would like to see more attention paid to S&G, and a tighter, more aggressive focus on some single point of attack. Nevertheless, I am not certain if CON formed an argument on any matter. with the exception of "Since PRO cannot prove there are no gods or goddesses anywhere, then it should be assumed that they are real." This argument could also be used to 'prove' that Barack Obama created the universe from his Kenyan spaceship. We also cannot prove absolutely that this did not happen. Arguments PRO
Vote Placed by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
MikalInductivelogicTied
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: A long RFD in the comments is not necessary here. Simply put, Con did not provide any evidence to demonstrate the existence of god.