The Instigator
rhema
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LucaliCole
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

god exists

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 7 votes the winner is...
LucaliCole
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,192 times Debate No: 28802
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (7)

 

rhema

Pro

last time on a similar topic, you won the debate against someone because he gave up...but i use personal experience to debate u on this topic.
i am a living proof that god exists. he's saved me from some situations in such a way that the believed impossible became possible. my sister's life has been saved about a year ago by prayers.....if god wasn't there, she'd have been dead by now.
i'll talk about it in detail in the next round
LucaliCole

Con

I accept.

It seems that I did indeed win the last debate, but mostly because my opponent was a troll. For what it's worth to the readers, I would be very eager to try that debate again with someone else on another occasion.

In this debate, however, I do not believe that I will be arguing with metaphysics or epistemology so much as I will be arguing from the standpoint of rhetoric. My primary claim is that anecdotal evidence is insufficient for effectively arguing any kind of point. I will also argue for the distinct difference between beliefs that fulfill the pragmatic concerns and those that fulfill doxastic concerns, and explain why doxastic concerns are the only ones worth debating over.

In this game of chess, I declare myself the black player, and pro can make the first move.

Cheers! And may the best debater win.
Debate Round No. 1
rhema

Pro

yes may the best of us win......but i'm debating this topic only to show what true belief is.
well, as i said b4 i'm talking mainly from personal experience. i'll also use life stories of other people.
my first point is: the reason for prayers being answered; what else if god was not real, would answer prayers?
i was half-prepared for my exams. i was planning to learn the rest during exams....i fell ill just the day b4 exam. i prayed.
even while giving exams, i gave it with trembling hands......i'd have been happy if i had even just passed. but on the result,however, i passed with a 1st division. tell me con, if there is no god how did i do so well with trembling fingers and a tired mind?

second point: miracles are performed even today
about a year ago, my little sister when she was 2 fell from the top to the bottom of a five floor building, and my sister survived even without y professional help. my dad said if she was going to die, he'd rather have her die in his arms n among unknown doctors. and guess what? after 2 hrs of rest, she woke up, had a limp for a day, and then was as good as good can be.
another miracle: this was performed in someone else's life. i read his life story in the book: taming the tiger. this is a part of it i'll never forget:
tony was a world kung-fu champion. he was in jail for a case of stealing. Alcaponey, a huge man killed his friend, Shawn. both men were looking chance to fight each other. the chance came and tony could have easily killed him but something stopped him. instead he just said"in Jesus' name, leave me alone!" (or sth similar) and the huge brute ran away! if god was not real, what could have made alaponey run away in the name of jesus?

this much for is round. and con, in the next round, please use easier words, i'm still at school, and the words u useare too big for me.
LucaliCole

Con

1. "what else if god was not real, would answer prayers?"

This argument rests on a fundamental misunderstanding: namely, that prayers are -in fact- answered. People pray every day: sometimes they get what they prayed for, and sometimes they don't. Does this mean that sometimes their prayers are being answered, and sometimes they're not? No. What this means is that things happen, and things don't happen. The only instances in which prayer can influence the outcome of something is if A.) it sufficiently benefits the psychological health of the individual to tip the tide in their favor, or B.) it saps the time and effort that the individual could have put into making their desires come true by the fruit of their own effort. Anything else that happens in between is purely coincidental.

2. "i was half-prepared for my exams. i was planning to learn the rest during exams....i fell ill just the day b4 exam. i prayed.
even while giving exams, i gave it with trembling hands......i'd have been happy if i had even just passed. but on the result,however, i passed with a 1st division. tell me con, if there is no god how did i do so well with trembling fingers and a tired mind?"

There was a Human Geography class that I hadn't attended for the entire semester, because I was too busy with classes that I deemed of higher academic priority. Finals week began, and I had finished every exam except for Human Geography. What did I do the night before? I had a random three-way with two cute ladies that I met at the bar, snorted half an 8-ball of cocaine, drank a 24 pack of beers, and smoked two packs of cigarettes. I still reeked like alcohol when I showed up for my final exam. I scored 98%, passed the class, and fulfilled the minimum general credit requirement to get my BA.

How did I pull this off with a tired mind and a severe hangover? Well, it's because I'm an incredibly smart guy, and I happen to be very good at taking tests. Apparently, you either have these very same attributes, or you're incredibly lucky. But you're not giving yourself enough credit if you're praising God for all of your success.

3. "second point: miracles are performed even today
about a year ago, my little sister when she was 2 fell from the top to the bottom of a five floor building, and my sister survived even without y professional help. my dad said if she was going to die, he'd rather have her die in his arms n among unknown doctors. and guess what? after 2 hrs of rest, she woke up, had a limp for a day, and then was as good as good can be."

Babies are actually incredibly resilient to physical harm. In fact, the only reason that your little sister survived falling five stories is because she was only two years old! This is for two reasons: one, because a two-year-old weighs less, this means that they face less force on impact than an adult would. Secondly, because their organs are smaller, they will stay in place; an adult, on the other hand, faces the risk of having their intestines spring out of their bodies, which is due to the increase in mass of their vital organs. For an easy-to-read article outlining the advantages that small children have in incidences of violent impact, check out this article: http://www.perfectingparenthood.com...

As for the final anecdote, I deem it unworthy of addressing on account of the fact that it's not even your own.

Now for my arguments.

1. Anecdotal Evidence is Insufficient

What you have done so far is explain what you believe based on your own personal experience. You have concluded that God must exist because you cannot think of any other possible explanations for the fortunes that have occurred in your life. But arguments from personal experience are never valid, because A.) they provide no a priori reasoning, and B.) the evidence cannot actually be shown to anyone else. It's like saying, "Sasquatch MUST exist. I'm living proof! I saw him." Well, do you have pictures? "No. I don't need pictures. I have memories!" Well, then you don't have any leverage in your argument for the existence of sasquatch. By extrapolation, you don't have any leverage in your argument for the existence of God either.

2. Pragmatic Truth vs. Doxastic Truth,

If believing in God helps you get through this crazy and difficult world we live in, then power to ya. This is called a pragmatic truth. Most pragmatic truths are subjective, because everybody is different: for example, for some people, atheism has led them to the happiest life they could possibly have; for others, it could be Buddhism. So it could be pragmatically true for you that God exists, but not for me. Of course, due to its subjective nature, pragmatic truth isn't really worth arguing with someone over. The truths that bring us to debate are the doxastic truths, which are independent of the experience of any individual.

Ultimately, I am yet to see any reason to support the claim that God is doxastically justified. The burden of proof is still on pro, so unless we get any convincing arguments in the last round, I strongly urge everyone to vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
rhema

Pro

you told me in ur last rnd,"you either have these very same attributes, or you're incredibly lucky" ok, con i may b lucky coz i m nt so intelligent. den tell me con, what exactly is luck? that's just what u prefer to call god. luck also, very like god, is nth u can prove, is it? can u show me evidence that i was lucky? o u can't similarly, god is nth we can prove.....ok here's another example: my sis was not born on time.......she was born 2 mths premature. of course she was put in a hospital, bt the doctors said she was a high risk patient n jst a the time my sis was inside,a strike on the hospital y parents of dead children started, the doctor fainted n there was only 1 nurse to take care of kids....she was also too angry to deal with them properly scared a special; prayer concerning the doctor and the babies was held in our church.... but the nurse didn't soften n all parents were forced to take away their babies. we did too. without medical help she would not have survived as she was unable even to suck mom's milk. wt saved her?
u also said"the evidence cannot actually be shown to anyone else" of course not....can we see oxygen? no! yet we know it's there. we don't ask for evidence that there is oxygen in the air, do we? we just breathe. god's like that, u jst believe him, u don't need evidence. tell me, last time u sat on a chair, did u pick it up to see if it would hold u? no! u didn't, u jst trusted it to hold ur weight. god's like that. u don't need to check twice b4 trusting him.
there is someone else i can use as my support, i hav an uncle, prakash, he is strongly interested politics. he took part in the big civil war, known as jana-andolan in nepal. he still has those scars. he had 2 bullets, 1 i forgot where n 1 in from his tummy n out from his back. the doctors had left him for dead. there were other patients with gr8r possibilities to live. among hundreds of people, he was one of only 4 who survived the night, after their operations, he was the only 1 to live he is still alive n u if u can come to nepal, he will show u the scars. there is evidence that there is god, coz he was prayed for n he lived! come on con, come to my country, i'll prove god to u! there is also another man i saw.... forgot his name...bt he had actually died! n prayer brought him back to life....tell me, if there is no god, how did he get his life back? now say con, do u believe?
there is a bad criminal who used to be frustrated all the time. a stranger started visiting him n he came to believe in Christ. 1 night he asked god to forgive him as suggested by the stranger. overnight he was a change man he left his criminal ways, his drugs, everything and he was just happy, so happy. i knw the criminal t i m nt taking any names.
tell me, if there is no god, what changed him so much? seeing that u have some knowledge regarding human health, u ought to know that a man heavily set on drugs can't leave it overnight.tell me now con, what enabled this man to totally leave drugs though he was a dreadful addict?
LucaliCole

Con

Whooo boy! Might I say, I think I should win this debate just for finishing it.

As I said before, Pro has not provided evidence or reason to support the existence of God. In fact, Pro hasn't actually offered any argument. I'm not going to reiterate why this is: the information is available if you scroll up.

Pro continues to quote circumstances in which she, someone she knew, or someone she just heard about through word of mouth, managed to overcome seemingly insurmountable circumstances. Instead of doing her research, however, she throws her hands up in the air and says, "God is the only explanation." But the reality of the matter is, with a global population of nearly 7 billion people, why should we be all that surprised when some random person overcomes harsh odds? Because meanwhile, there are over 150,000 people dying every single day, many of whom are praying to survive[1] and are not having their prayers answered. So instead of pointing to the handful of fortunate people in the world and asking, "How is it that you don't believe in God?" I'm pointing to the majority of scenarios and asking, "How is this supposed to support the existence of God?"

Ultimately, the burden of proof was on Pro, and Pro has failed to offer sufficient reason. I believe this to be an open and shut case. Vote Con.

Source:
https://www.cia.gov...
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Bodhivaka 3 years ago
Bodhivaka
rhemaLucaliColeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's case was built up solely on anecdotal "evidence." As Con accurately pointed out, anecdotal evidence is not enough to fulfill one's burden of proof in a formal debate; as such, Con gets points for arguments. For obvious reasons, Con also gets S&G points. As Con was the only one to use any sources, he gets points for sources, as well.
Vote Placed by andrewkletzien 3 years ago
andrewkletzien
rhemaLucaliColeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made no attempts to validate a posteriori articles of faith. Instead, they were asserted and assumed to be of value to such a debate, violating the BoP. No question.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 3 years ago
DoctorDeku
rhemaLucaliColeTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: I appreciate Pro standing up for her beliefs, but her advocacy was very weak here. Personal examples are far from convincing in a formal debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
rhemaLucaliColeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I would hope my RFD is obvious; Pro had no valid arguments, and atrocious S&G. Con didn't use a lot of sources, but used more reliable sources than Pro, that's for sure.
Vote Placed by dylancatlow 3 years ago
dylancatlow
rhemaLucaliColeTied
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 debated herself did one hell of a job.
Vote Placed by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
rhemaLucaliColeTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Lol, pretty clear Con win. Con does a good job in pointing out how poor Pro's arguments are. I dont really think Cons own arguments were that compelling, but they clashed with the Pro case and carried the round pretty easily. Props to pro for making me literally laugh out loud with this quote: " please use easier words, i'm still at school, and the words u useare too big for me."
Vote Placed by morgan2252 3 years ago
morgan2252
rhemaLucaliColeTied
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 had absolutely no sources and had very poor spelling and grammar. Conduct and convincing arguments go to con because he uses solid proof instead of assuming what happened.