The Instigator
Francie123
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
imsmarterthanyou98
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

This House believes that a non-religious God is likely and this belief is reasonable

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/8/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 208 times Debate No: 87850
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

Francie123

Pro

This will be a debate with one very strict aim - to argue whether belief in the likely existence of a 'universe causing and sustaining' being is reasonable.

This debate will not use any arguments, at all, that require a believer to prescribe to Christian, Islamic, Jewish or other religious ideas. For example, the Bible will not be accepted as evidence. The idea that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent - and therefore, for example, must exist in order for there to be justice in the world - will not be accepted as true unless shown to be. All such arguments will be discounted, with voters deciding what breaks the rules, though we may challenge each other on this in debate.

My position starts from the perspective that there is no reason at all to assume that God - three letters meaning only in this debate the cause of and sustaining force of the universe - has ever or will ever 'communicate' with Man. Religious ideas may be right or wrong or just barking, but this has no effect on whether the concept of God is possible, likely or reasonable.

The words likely and reasonable will be immensely important in this debate. It is not enough for the Con (my opponent) to show that such a belief is not provable. Neither is it enough for me, the Pro, to show such a belief is merely possible. I must show that the existence of such a God is a reasonable interpretation for the most profound questions about our universe, and furthermore is, as oxford dictionary puts it, "such as well might happen or be true; probable:". My opponent may either show my belief is unreasonable, and therefore a matter of illogical faith, or that it has enough requirements, problems and complications that it becomes unlikely to be true.

I am not an opponent to be taken on lightly. I'm 17, I study this topic, and I can make a darn good argument. I am hoping for an intelligent and difficult debate, not a tiring and repetitive one. Best of luck to my opponent.

Debate formula:
Round 1: Purely for stating the nature of the debate. Con may question or ask for furthering elaboration on any of the above rules, but must not present an argument. Due to the complexity of the debate, Con agrees to respect my definitions of the debate.

Round 2: Setting out arguments.

Round 3: Responding to previous arguments and furthering/adding new arguments.

Round 4: Responding to previous arguments and furthering previously stated arguments only.

Round 5: Summarise the most important points, with no new arguments.
imsmarterthanyou98

Con

I agree to the terms herby setforth... :) Wish we make this interesting.
Debate Round No. 1
Francie123

Pro

Francie123 forfeited this round.
imsmarterthanyou98

Con

imsmarterthanyou98 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Francie123

Pro

Francie123 forfeited this round.
imsmarterthanyou98

Con

imsmarterthanyou98 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Francie123

Pro

Francie123 forfeited this round.
imsmarterthanyou98

Con

imsmarterthanyou98 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Francie123

Pro

Francie123 forfeited this round.
imsmarterthanyou98

Con

imsmarterthanyou98 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 11 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Very commendable. As to the child, Even a child who is barely able to walk, if burned by something hot, will demonstrate and instantaneous repulsion to any object you attempt to hand them, until you yourself, reassure them and touch other parts of their body with it while you soothingly talk to them, then and only then will they start taking things again. I've personally seen this. So your hypothesis is not factual. I'd say give it a try but the establishment would react most unpleasantly, likely tossing you into the Big House so to speak.

As to there scientific evidence of the existence of God. There in point of fact IS such evidence, which can be seen, studied, observed, in great detail ..... But in order to accept and reasonably evaluate its data, requires one to stand outside the worlds reasoning, and even the scientists themselves reasoning .... in essence you must Review the Data presented, disregarding all attempts to lead you to their personal interpretations, and SEE the data for what it is, what it suggest, and what it does.

Type in WHAT is the DNA strand ..... read the Data only, not conjectures, hypothesis, just what it is? What it Does? Does it demonstrate randomness? Does it demonstrate intelligence? Could have come about precisely as it IS out of sheer accident, and perform as it performs in the real world? There are tons of opinions by scientist, but IF your going to seek TRUTH you must look at only the data, and determine what IS truth to your own mind.

You might also wish, while your waiting for your opponent to respond, to review all data in reference to the Atom as well. I have found that 90% of the people on this debate area, tend to refuse to look for themselves. It's a pity really.
Posted by Francie123 11 months ago
Francie123
@FollowerofChrist1955

It's an interesting question about the nature of knowledge you're raising. I completely agree that it is immensely important to have an open mind - one must always consider the alternatives, avoid being dogmatic and seek out all the different kinds of truth, from spiritual to scientific.

As for your question of the child, I believe I can answer it. Very young children cannot reason and therefore cannot understand arguments based on reason. The brain takes many years to develop - but an 8 year old, for example, can understand a stove is hot, even if they have never burned themselves on one. So some degree of reason, especially in adults, can be seen to be real. Adults can reason whether to swap jobs, for example.

As I'm sure you've noticed though, my question and the terms beneath it are very clear that I am not trying to prove the existence of a God-like being. Rather, I am trying to make an argument that is a) based on reason and b) stands coherently against the reasonable atheist explanations for the universe, such as the Big Bang. Certainly the question is about what is real, but as God is not provable - that it is to say, He is not true by definition or provable using scientific methods - the possibility or doubt of his existence has to be accepted.

Your faith is admirable - I know many people who wish they could feel God's presence as strongly as you do! However, in this question, I intend to assume nothing, and avoid using faith as an answer in any part of my argument. If you do believe this is not a worthwhile use of my opposition and my own time, then I would guess we're approaching theology so differently that this debate will have little merit in your eyes.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 11 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
The question at hand is what is real, not what can I understand to BE reasonable to my own mind. That in and of itself, presents a barrier to true debate. It also presents an unfair advantage, as ones inability to accept what is fact, automatically renders truth, as nonfactual based solely on the fact that one does not consider it reasonable to their own mind. This renders such debates as futile.

A Closed mind can never see truth, when the requirement to understand it is Its sole criterion. Example ..... You struggle to keep a child from touching a hot stove ... YOU know it's hot and will burn the child, The child however does not know that, even when you tell him ... therefore the child does not understand, your request for him to not touch it , He reasons that YOUR REQUEST is not factual since he himself cannot understand it ..... (same as your requirements for this debate).

Question : Does this mean it is NOT true because the child doesn't believe you have a reasonable explanation? Of course not, the child will touch it, get burned and THEN bam clarity! It is the same for God. He does exist, He does interact with His followers, He does and IS moving the future to predestined place, AND was gracious enough to SHOW it to His followers in written form.

Because 90% of the human populace CANNOT see it, doesn't understand it (always because they don't bother to look for themselves). Doesn't BELIEVE in Gods reasoning, does this in someway negate His existence? Look at the REAL example previously given and perhaps, just perhaps, you just might get it!
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 11 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
JediDude ..... really!
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 11 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Hmmm citing intelligence, followed by the term Atheist is an oxymoron, as atheist do not THINK on their own, they are TOLD what to think! This clearly brings into question their use of the term ..... intelligence?
Posted by JediDude 11 months ago
JediDude
Good like finding a competitor. As an intelligent atheist that often debates, most Religious bigots are looking for someone that has a weak argument.
No votes have been placed for this debate.