The Instigator
ad4m
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
ravenwaen
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

god hides behind science

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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,165 times Debate No: 12299
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

ad4m

Pro

In this debate i will be pro for that god uses science to cover religon's tracks.
and i would like to thank any readers of this debate and anyone who wants to argue it.

======
pro (me)
======
Now a god is a supreme being and i will be using the christian's idea of god. and i believe something similar to the faith of desim but i do not believe that we can prove god but prove what he has done with reason and i believe this because how could we put faith in god made us evolve instead of create us and so i believe that god created us but made evolution say that we really evolved thus making us have to trust god or put faith in him

======
con
======
Con will try to say that god may not exist because of logic or say we should only put faith into god or make any other arguments aganist this.
ravenwaen

Con

This is my first debate and I sincerely thank all who participate.

My opponent makes the following claims, but provides neither evidence nor rational deduction for any of them:
1)The Christian God created "us."
2)The scientifically established, near-universally recognized fact of Evolution is a fa�ade created by God.
3)The purpose of this fa�ade was to deceive humans of the truth (Claim 1), thereby requiring theists to take a greater leap of faith.

The baseless presumptions here are countless, but I will focus on a few.

This argument is premised on the existence of the Christian God, which is in itself an extraordinary claim and should not be overlooked or automatically granted as true. If my opponent defines God as Benevolent and Omnipotent in a universe where Evil exists, then it would fairly be regarded as false due to logical fallacy. Even if the possibility of the Christian God is granted, my opponent still fails to provide any proof for any of his other claims.

My opponent also falsely presupposes that the Theory of Evolution makes any assertions about the origins of life. It does not. Rather, Evolution is an explanation of the origins of species – that is, the formation of different species over time. Biogenesis is a separate matter entirely.

The conclusion of my opponent's argument is essentially a modified version of Russell's Teapot. The burden of proof lies on my opponent to prove these unfalsifiable claims about religion and the universe. The maxim, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" applies here.

Before advancing to Round 2, I strongly urge my opponent to search Wikipedia for "Russell's Teapot," "Problem of Evil," and "Theory of Evolution."
Debate Round No. 1
ad4m

Pro

thank you for bring up some good points

-now i will admit that i did not support my facts in round 1 but that is because i was only trying to say what i was trying to bring up in this debate, so i apologize for this

-Also if there is a god(which i believe) or a supreme being couldn't it be smart enough to cover its tracks?
-and i wonder how can a athesit sleep at night know that one day they will die and they will never again feel, hear, see or do anything just wipe from existance, now this says that i joined Christanty just because i was born into it or scared into it but i believe that

-keep in mind a theory is "contemplation or speculation" so it can be disproven

- i read all your sources in wikipedia and i have come up with the following:
1) in russell's teapot and the argument is based on the presumption that there is no valid reason, beyond widespread belief, to believe that the teapot exists. But if the validity of those ancient books could be established, there is indeed reason to believe that the teapot exists, and thus the presumption in the argument is false.

2) in "problem of evil" it says since we suffer and have pain then why does the all-loving god let this happen? well before we had orginal sin had the garden of adam and eve where there was no pain or suffering but we do have suffering and pain because we betrayed god and this is a test on how we live or lives and that pain will be gone after we die if we pass god's test for we had betrayed god

3) Now the theory of Evolution is widly unliked by many people who support god but i said that when god created us, he used evolution so that we can think that we evolved and the point of this is as you said "greater leap of faith."

Now there are no theories supporting god because, well to explain god is impossible because it is based on faith but almost everything you just said can be disproven where as god cannot be explained or disproven

now lets take it for somehow you knew what god was thinking, now you want people to join heaven because they are loyal to you, but if you showed them that you really did exist then everyone will join because of fact but you need people to believe you, and everyone will get to go to heaven but heaven is a reward for those who truly believe in god. So yes god needed to make a bigger leap of faith and so god should be smarter for god is the creater of the universe then anyone of us and cover his tracks.

So i thank my opponent for this great points and i was very interested to see these theories that were brought up and i apologize again if my 1st round was explained badly. But i look foward to our rounds toward the future. And i apologize for such a long round
ravenwaen

Con

Thank you for addressing my counterarguments and reading those articles! Your reply was thorough and certainly not too long.

Although, again, I find fault with many of my opponent's assertions, I will comment primarily on those that are relevant to the topic at hand**, that "god hides behind science."

THE ARGUMENT
My opponent has only established the POSSIBILITY that – IF the Christian God exists and IF he has such motivation – he COULD "cover his tracks" with the illusion of science. This is not enough. To win this debate, he will need to show with sufficient evidence that God DID, not just could have done, such a thing.

"Now there are no theories supporting god because, well to explain god is impossible because it is based on faith … god cannot be explained or disproven."
My opponent regards God as an "unexplainable" force while simultaneously making extraordinary claims of insight into God's actions and motives! Either God has a perceivable effect on the material world with discernable motivations (which you imply), OR he is unexplainable – it cannot go both ways.

If it was God's intention to deceive humans as a test of their faith, why is there so much other purported "evidence" of God? Miracles, prophecies, and the like are experienced by some, but not others. Millions of people worldwide are never even introduced to the Bible and thus have no opportunity to have Christian faith – are they being given a test that they are doomed to fail?

THE (LACK OF) EVIDENCE
"If the validity of those ancient books could be established, there is indeed reason to believe that the teapot exists."
Here my opponent implies, through the Teapot analogy, that the Bible (the ancient books that support the existence of a God) is a credible source of information. It is AT BEST highly varying eye-witness testimony – a notoriously unreliable type of evidence – and at worst a collection of fables and archaic law, the modern version of which has been heavily edited over time. If the Bible is my opponent's main source, he has yet to show anywhere that it says "God uses Evolution to cover his tracks."

**These are less relevant, but deserve correction.
A) Your statement, "a theory is ‘contemplation or speculation' so it can be disproven," is misguided. A Scientific Theory is not a hypothesis, a thought, or a prediction. Please visit Source #1 and read the "Pedagogical definition."
B) Problem of Evil – I apologize for not explaining this further. This is the argument I was referencing: If God CAN and IS WILLING to do Good, why does Evil exist? The creation of Evil is inherently contradictory to a Benevolent Creator.

Sources:
1.http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you, I look forward to the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
ad4m

Pro

i can no longer continue this debate because i have other things going on in my life and i apologize for this and i thank my con for debating this with me. Thank you for the theorys and i found them really interesting and i hope i can debate about this in a later future. Also a thanks 2 anyone who has read this debate
ravenwaen

Con

Thank you for starting this debate and conducting it civilly.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8
"i will be using the christian's idea of god. and i believe something similar to the faith of desim"

The Christian God is contradictory to the Deist God. You can't be a Christian and believe in the Deist God. The Deist God does not intervene, he doesn't answer prayers and is not associated with any religion. Generally, Deists are against Christianity especially.
Posted by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
Not trying to votebomb but can't really vote any other way.
Posted by ad4m 6 years ago
ad4m
srry but in second round when i said "i believe that" i seem to have forgot to finish it, i mean i believe that this could not just be the end and i refuse to believe my existance just ends
Posted by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
This should be good.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by jat93 6 years ago
jat93
ad4mravenwaenTied
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 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
ad4mravenwaenTied
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 
Vote Placed by cjl 6 years ago
cjl
ad4mravenwaenTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
ad4mravenwaenTied
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