The Instigator
Sphynx111222
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SebUK
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

god is real

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 2 votes the winner is...
SebUK
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 526 times Debate No: 65679
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

Sphynx111222

Pro

God exists because if he didnt we wouldn't be able to think read or write. Where did the first monkies come from? Where did the exploding star in the big bang come from?
SebUK

Con

I'm gone play devil's advocate , the BoP is on pro. 'God exists because if he didnt we wouldn't be able to think read or write.' Prove that , the Burden of Proof is on. That is simply a claim and you have not proved it to be true. 'Where did the first monkies come from? ' Before my opponent uses the 'Why are there still monkies if humans evolved from monkies' argument I will point out that humans did not evolve from monkies but a common ancestor with the apes . There were no 'first' monkies just like the question 'did the chicken or the egg come first' is illogical because there was no first chicken . Organisms slowly evolve , if there is simply one small mutation that does not make the animal entirely different. Monkies came from another animal. 'Modern-day "monkeys" comprise two distinct groups: the Old World monkeys (living in Africa, Asia and Gibraltar), and the New World monkeys (living in Central and South America).

The New World monkey lineage split from the rest of the simian lineage about 40 million years ago. Some members of this new lineage eventually crossed the Atlantic and evolved into the New World monkeys (the rest remained in the Old World and became extinct).' - (http://friendsofdarwin.com...) 'Where did the exploding star in the big bang come from?' I quote 'As George Gonazalez pointed out correctly, the Big Bang was not due to an exploding 'star'. Actually it was not a 'bang' at all! It is believed, it was the universe expanding at a tremendous rate, as earlier it was sort of compressed to a very small region.' - (http://www.quora.com...)
Debate Round No. 1
Sphynx111222

Pro

Well why do so many people believe in god then??? Also, who caused the big bang!?!?!??!?!?
SebUK

Con

'Well why do so many people believe in god then???' Just because an X amount of people believe in something it does not make it true, for example if the majority of vikings believed that rain is simply tears of God it wouldn't make it true just like the fact that there is more muslims then buddhists does not make Islam true. 'The bandwagon fallacy is committed by arguments that appeal to the growing popularity of an idea as a reason for accepting it as true. They take the mere fact that an idea suddenly attracting adherents as a reason for us to join in with the trend and become adherents of the idea ourselves.

This is a fallacy because there are many other features of ideas than truth that can lead to a rapid increase in popularity. Peer pressure, tangible benefits, or even mass stupidity could lead to a false idea being adopted by lots of people. A rise in the popularity of an idea, then, is no guarantee of its truth.

The bandwagon fallacy is closely related to the appeal to popularity; the difference between the two is that the bandwagon fallacy places an emphasis on current fads and trends, on the growing support for an idea, whereas the appeal to popularity does not.' -(http://www.logicalfallacies.info...) You have made an appeal to popularity it seems . Here is an example off the website . ' (1) Increasingly, people are coming to believe that Eastern religions help us to get in touch with our true inner being.
Therefore:
(2) Eastern religions help us to get in touch with our true inner being.

This argument commits the bandwagon fallacy because it appeals to the mere fact that an idea is fashionable as evidence that the idea is true. Mere trends in thought are not reliable guides to truth, though; the fact that Eastern religions are becoming more fashionable does not imply that they are true.' now let's address the second part of my opponent's arguments . 'Also, who caused the big bang!?!?!??!?!?' First of all by simply asking questions my opponent is not proving how God is real , unanswered questions do not prove God is not real because Pro actually has to fullfill the BoP meaning he has to show evidence for his claim . First of all Pro has to prove that something caused the Big Bang .
Debate Round No. 2
Sphynx111222

Pro

I know god is real because i prayed and it came true -.-
SebUK

Con

'I know god is real because i prayed and it came true -.-' I don't care about your personal experience , personal experience is no evidence at all it cannot be the subject to the scientific method for example it is not testible . You have to fullfill the Burden of proof , so far you have not provided any proof and I have refuted your every 'argument' (comment) . I quote ' The fact is, God never answers any prayers. The entire idea that "God answers prayers" is an illusion created by human imagination.

How do we know that "answered prayers" are illusions? We simply perform scientific experiments. We ask a group of believers to pray for something and then we watch what happens. What we find, whenever we test the efficacy of prayer scientifically, is that prayer has zero effect:

It does not matter who prays.
It does not matter if we pray to God, Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Ra or any other human god.
It does not matter what we pray about.

If we perform scientific, double-blind tests on prayer, and if the prayers involve something concrete and measurable (for example, healing people with cancer), we know that there is zero effect from prayer. Every single "answered prayer" is nothing more than a coincidence. Both scientific experiments and your everyday observations of the world show this to be the case every single time.

For example, this article says:

One of the most scientifically rigorous studies yet, published earlier this month, found that the prayers of a distant congregation did not reduce the major complications or death rate in patients hospitalized for heart treatments.

And:

A review of 17 past studies of 'distant healing," published in 2003 by a British researcher, found no significant effect for prayer or other healing methods. ' -( http://godisimaginary.com... )
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Libertarian_Crusader 2 years ago
Libertarian_Crusader
Granted, but they usually have a different tone than what this kid has. And can also use proper grammar.
Posted by SebUK 2 years ago
SebUK
It's not like the western adult population is smart.
Posted by Libertarian_Crusader 2 years ago
Libertarian_Crusader
Judging by his grammar skills, I'd say that its highly unlikely that he's 26.
Posted by SebUK 2 years ago
SebUK
My opponent is older then me by the way so I would be considered the 'kid' here . Both me and Pro are Libertarian so clearly he wouldn't represent Libertarians .
Posted by Libertarian_Crusader 2 years ago
Libertarian_Crusader
I'd just liek to say that this Kid doesn't represent us Libertarians.
Posted by GDNE 2 years ago
GDNE
Arguments shouldn't be just one sentence. Most people arguing would have said what they prayed for and how it came true. That's just an example.
Posted by Sphynx111222 2 years ago
Sphynx111222
Shut up assh*le
Posted by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
Sphynx why are you on this site? You make comments not arguments. Think Yahoo message board is a more appropriate site for you.
Posted by Harold_Lloyd 2 years ago
Harold_Lloyd
Your confusion is between 'god' and 'first cause'.

The proper questions for you to be asking deal with how things got to be this way.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
Sphynx111222SebUKTied
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 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: I think its pretty clear. . .
Vote Placed by Zanomi3 2 years ago
Zanomi3
Sphynx111222SebUKTied
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 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: Full points to Con. Spelling and Grammar is clearly more sophisticated and put together, as well as sources being used. Arguments is a clear win, as Pro only uses fallacies and personal experience.