The Instigator
MikeNH
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
othercheek
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Why Should I Believe God Exists?

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 1 vote the winner is...
MikeNH
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 777 times Debate No: 41425
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

MikeNH

Con

This debate will give me (CON) and my opponant (PRO) a chance to have a rational discussion regarding the belief that a god exists. I have been presented with the claim that god exists, and have yet to accept the claim until I am presented with good evidence/reasoning to justify such a belief.


---------------------------Rules---------------------------

PRO must believe/accept the claim that a god exists, and he/she will have the burden of proof to demonstrate that it is rational to hold that such a claim is true.

------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------Format---------------------------

Round 1: PRO will present 1-2 arguments for the existence of god. Please, NO MORE than 2 arguments will be presented, I would like to keep this argument relatively focused.

Rounds 2-4: Responding back and forth to arguments/rebuttals presented, NO NEW ARGUMENTS can be made.

------------------------------------------------------------
othercheek

Pro

Here are the reasons:

1) Personal witnesses/testimonies -
Colton Burpo - went to heaven, saw Jesus, and came back to earth
Tamara LaRoux - went to hell, personally communicated with Jesus, and came back

2) Any person believes in God until atheism is introduced to them through outside sources. This rock-solid foundation of faith--that I will not disbelieve naturally until atheism is introduced--could also be evidence that there is a God who is in our brain and soul naturally.

I look forward to your rebuttals and thank you for a friendly debate.
Debate Round No. 1
MikeNH

Con

---------------------------Contention #1----------------------------

"Personal witnesses/testimonies - ...."

It seems clear to me that accepting such testimonies is in no way an argument in favor of your case, as if you accept the personal testimonies of those who claim to have had experiences that support your particular brand of theism, Christianity it seems, on what grounds do you reject the countless number of other testimonies that come from other mutually exclusive faiths? Do you reject the revelations of Mormons, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc.? If you do, on what grounds do you accept only the testimonies that support your faith and reject the others that do not?

If I accepted personal experience/testimonies as a reason to believe in God, I would be left in the position of being forced to believe claims from every religion, that aliens are visiting Earth and abducting and probing humans, that the loch ness monster exists, that bigfoot is somewhere in the forest of the midwest, etc... On those grounds, I personally do not think that we can rely on these supposed experiences to justify such beliefs without being intellectually dishonest and/or being guilty of confirmation bias.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


---------------------------Contention #2----------------------------

"Any person believes in God until atheism is introduced to them through outside sources. This rock-solid foundation of faith--that I will not disbelieve naturally until atheism is introduced--could also be evidence that there is a God who is in our brain and soul naturally."

Can you provide any justification for this claim at all? It seems to be to be a patently absurd one, given that in order to believe a proposition, it needs to be presented to you in some way. You cannot believe something you are not aware of - as belief is the 'psychological state in which an individual holds a conjecture or premise to be true'. (1)(2)

There needs to be some conjecture of premise that one is made aware of before they could actually believe it, which seems to me to mean that we don't hold any beliefs by default. In order to even begin demonstrating this assertion, you need to first provide justification that supports the notion that we all believe in god until 'atheism is introduced'.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------Sources--------------------------------

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) Schwitzgebel, Eric (2006), "Belief", in Zalta, Edward, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford, CA: The Metaphysics Research Lab, retrieved 2008-09-19

------------------------------------------------------------------------
othercheek

Pro

Wow! Very nice points, very well-thought out.

I concede.
Debate Round No. 2
MikeNH

Con

Thanks for the concession, but I genuinely want to keep this discussion going. Do you have another argument you'd like to present?
othercheek

Pro

othercheek forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
MikeNH

Con

I suppose we can leave it at that then, thanks for conceding.
othercheek

Pro

othercheek forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MrVan 3 years ago
MrVan
I think pro would have stood a better chance if he/she didn't confine the definition of god to the Judaic version.
Posted by Kashmead 3 years ago
Kashmead
why does every debate about believing in God(s) turn into a debate about christianity? lmao
Posted by MikeNH 3 years ago
MikeNH
So I challenged you and you declined. Did you finally realize you're wrong about the belief/disbelief distinction?
Posted by MikeNH 3 years ago
MikeNH
I'm willing to challenge you to a debate on this, because it's extremely straightforward. Are you willing to make the claim that if there are only two choices, A or B, and I say I don't believe A, I therefor believe B?
Posted by Installgentoo 3 years ago
Installgentoo
@MikeNH Disbelief is still a position on something. If I play a poker game and I don't believe i have a good hand then I know I have a bad hand. Atheism is a knowledge claim about the universe.
Posted by MikeNH 3 years ago
MikeNH
No, you just want to pigeon-hole atheists into one sub-type of their category. Saying that atheism is necessarily the claim that god doesn't exist is the same as saying theism is the belief in christianity. It's not fair and not honest. There is no special pleading, you're just bitter about losing that debate with me because you can't read simple rules.

I just googled atheism, and the first 5 definitions I found did not make the same mistake you made.

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities" (1)
"Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods." (2)
"Atheism is the absence of belief in any Gods or spiritual beings." (3)
"disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." (4)
"it is a lack of belief in gods. " (5)

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
(3) http://www.bbc.co.uk...
(4) google define atheism
(5) http://atheists.org...
Posted by Installgentoo 3 years ago
Installgentoo
This MikeNH guy is a moron who special pleads for the definition of atheism as being not a belief at all, despite the fact it is defined as such everywhere else.
Posted by dvande28 3 years ago
dvande28
The two arguments pro has provided are completely absurd and impossible to defend. Both arguments can be argued against simply by the existence of other religions than Christianity. There have been eye-witness accounts for every religion imaginable, and these cannot all be true. Also, if we all were born believing in God, wouldn't we all be born believing in the same one?
Posted by Babayetu 3 years ago
Babayetu
*undefendable
Posted by Babayetu 3 years ago
Babayetu
The pro debater has picked 2 of the stupidest possible things to debate ever.... of all time. There will never be a reason to believe supposed eyewitness testimonies unless these people have some form of evidence other than their word, which they never will, cos that infringes free will. And the full on retarded notion that everyone is born religious until atheism is introduced is just undependable. I was raised neither theist nor atheist, the subject of religion never ever came up, i wasn't even really aware religions existed until i was like, 10 years of age. If i everyone was born religious then that would not have been possible, i would have to have been explicitly told god does not exist which i wasn't.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MrVan 3 years ago
MrVan
MikeNHothercheekTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to provide any sources, used confusing and almost comically bad arguments, and ultimately conceded to Con's arguments. Pro's forfeit of rounds three and four also cost her/him conduct.