The Instigator
david77
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Chthonian
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

god

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 1 vote the winner is...
Chthonian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,337 times Debate No: 19222
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

david77

Pro

I am for the existence of god, Con will argue against the existence of god, Present your argument in first round (meaning don't just accept)
reason 1: The universe cant be infinitely old (some atheists assert that universe always existed) because the second law of aerodynamics states that energy will eventually deplete in a closed system.
reason 2: The complexity and design of the universe is evidence of god. One analogy I will use is the watch analogy, if you walk on a sidewalk and you see a watch you arent going to think that the watch randomly assembled itself you're going to think that it was created by a more complex being (humans)
I will present more reasons as this debate goes on longer.
Chthonian

Con

I would like to thank David77 for giving me the opportunity to debate this profound issue.

Problems with the idea god

The word "god" can connote many meanings, but it is unclear from round 1 which meaning Pro wishes to use. So, I will start off assuming (please confirm) that my opponent is referring to the monotheistic Judeo-Christian god, and as such, my opening argument will be presented with this understanding.

According to the Judeo-Christian monotheistic tradition, God is a singular omnipresent and omnipotent perfect benevolent being that supposedly created man and woman in his image (1). Moreover, this Judeo-Christian god has supposedly created the world for humanity (1), but has done so without ever giving direct explicit instruction--for all to understand--of his or our purpose. This begs the question: why not? Humanity would be more inclined to believe in a god and follow his will if we he would reveal who and what he is; and god should a priori know this to be true. In addition, it is generally thought that god has granted mankind with free will. But if god is omnipotent that he is aware of all future events, which makes any act man does predetermined and thus un-free (2)

In biblical times, the story is that the god presented himself to Moses, but there is no way to confirm if this alleged incident is true. Through recorded history, there have also been numerous accounts of select people claiming to have been given the word of god; but again none of these claims can be substantiated. God has never been physically documented and verified and has never revealed himself to the entire human race. So, there is no direct evidence for his existence. The concept of god is only known from subjective interpretations that man has created from our limited understanding of the cosmos.

Criteria of truth

To prove that something exists is to give tangible evidence that it is real. To disprove that something exists is to demonstrate that the evidence for the affirmative is false.

With this in mind, it is not known whether god is a physical being and thus can't be empirically measured. If the universe has a beginning and thus a cause, presumably the all-powerful god would have been the initiator of that cause. This would suggest that god is outside of this universe and therefore not governed by its laws. As a consequence, god may not be made of the baryonic (i.e., physical) matter that makes up the 5% of our known universe (3), nor may he be directly interacting with our perceivable world--the alleged accounts not with standing-so we can't even generate or validate paradigms in with to test expected predications. Thus, this makes the claim that god exists unverifiable, which shifts the burden of proof with Pro to demonstrate that the claim that god exists is even knowable.

Challenging Pro's evidence for the existence of god

The evidence presented thus far has been indirect in the form of misapplying a natural law and a faulty logical analogy.

To begin, the second law of thermodynamics doesn't lend any support for the existence of a god; nor does it posit that energy will eventually deplete in our universe. The second law of thermodynamics is founded on the first law of thermodynamics, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed (4). This clearly contradicts Pro's assertion that energy will eventually deplete in a closed system. It can be deduced from the second law of thermodynamics that the energy is transferred from one form to another ensuring the certain phenomena are irreversible if the energy conditions favor it to be so (5).

The complexity and design of the universe as evidence of god and the watch analogy that followed is fatally flawed. For starters, a watch can't be equally compared to the universe, because a watch doesn't provide a useful framework in which to explore the complexities of the universe; there is no reason to believe that man-made objects and natural objects have similar properties. Second, we know through fractal systems that complex shapes and designs can be created without having a ‘conscience creator' (6). Last, we know on earth that a watch has a maker (or makers), but if we suggest that the maker of the watch has a maker, then it stands to reason the maker of the maker of the watch has a maker, and the maker of the maker of the maker of the watch has a maker; and so on and so on ad infinitum.

I am looking forward to my opponent addressing these criticisms of her evidence as well as providing more support for the existence of god.

References

1.http://www.biblegateway.com...
2.http://plato.stanford.edu...
3.http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
4.http://en.wikipedia.org...
5.http://en.wikipedia.org...
6.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
david77

Pro

Humanity would be more inclined to believe in a god and follow his will if we he would reveal who and what he is
He has revealed himself through the word of bible, through the complexity of the world, through the experiences of life.

In addition, it is generally thought that god has granted mankind with free will. But if god is omnipotent that he is aware of all future events, which makes any act man does predetermined and thus un-free

To give free will, at the same time knowing what the person will do with their free will is not predetermining their behavior, your knowledge of what will happen does not predetermine it, god did not predetermine our destiny, although he knows what we will do, it doesn't mean he controls us.

God has never been physically documented and verified and has never revealed himself to the entire human race.

Jesus is the indirect physical evidence that god has revealed himself to the entire human race.

The concept of god is only known from subjective interpretations that man has created from our limited understanding of the cosmos.

More like the concept of god is known through the bible.

To prove that something exists is to give tangible evidence that it is real.

Faith is also required to understand god

we can't even generate or validate paradigms in with to test expected predications.

Indeed god is not something we can create a model out of yet, we don't understand him enough to do so.

It can be deduced from the second law of thermodynamics that the energy is transferred from one form to another ensuring the certain phenomena are irreversible if the energy conditions favor it to be so

yeah that's what I meant to imply, there would be no usable energy left over once the universe gets old enough

For starters, a watch can't be equally compared to the universe, because a watch doesn't provide a useful framework in which to explore the complexities of the universe

It's an analogy, essentially analogies are made to help you understand my point, and my point was that if you looked at universe's design you would assume there is a creator.

there is no reason to believe that man-made objects and natural objects have similar properties.

Man-made objects are made from natural objects.

Additional arguments

Universe is complex and extremely hostile place for humans to live, so its highly unlikely that humans would be alive today without god's intervention. God created the earth in the perfect distance away from the Sun, He forced gravity to cause atmospheres to exist. He created atoms, such as oxygen for us to exist, Oxygen is pretty rare in outer space. The fact that we are alive today in spite of all of those hostile environment is evidence for god, because for all of those things to all happen just right naturally the odds are so low that its rational to assume higher intervention, such as God.

One part of information I learned in AP Biology is that the cell theory states that all cells are created by pre existing cells.
This obviously begs the question of who (or what) created the first cell. This to me is an support of existence of god.

Matter itself contains principles that would give rise to an ordered universe...God created those matter to purposely cause them to eventually create an complex living beings such as us.
Chthonian

Con

While I appreciate the counter points my opponent offers, I am disappointed that no substantial evidence for the existence of god has been provided.

God and the bible

Pro states that god has given his instruction through the words of the bible. But god is not believed to have actually penned the bible or any of the various Holy Scriptures that claim his authority over man (1). It was man who wrote and translated these books through the centuries. This is clearly demonstrated in the Exodus 21:20-21(2) where slavery is considered acceptable and beating them is equally acceptable. If a benevolent God existed, would he disparage his creation and allow for unequal treatment?

More important perhaps is that the passages in the bible can be contradictory. For example, in Deuteronomy 5:17 (3) it states that "thou shall not kill", but it is unclear in what context we should not kill. It would seem that the true meaning is not to commit murder. Yet in Deuteronomy 20:17 (4), god commands the Israelites to "utterly destroy….the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites"; god is explicitly ordering murder here. Further in Deuteronomy 32:39 (5), god clearly states he kills and wounds. If a benevolent god existed, would he violate his own commandment by killing, wounding and ordering murder?

Is Free will truly free?

My opponent raises an interesting point about free will. Specifically that god doesn't control our actions, but he just knows what we are going to do before we do it. This would imply that any decision to perform an action is irrelevant, because it will always be the action we were going to do; hence it was predetermined. Further, if god does exist and knows all actions before they occur, why would he allow bad things to happen to good people?

Jesus is not evidence for god

Pro puts forth the idea that Jesus is indirect physical evidence that god exists. But this fact only stems from the Christian idea that Jesus was the messiah. Adherents of Jewish tradition disagree with this notion that Jesus was the messiah and both Jewish and Muslim adherents don't believe that a messiah is the son of god (6); and both of these religions find this belief embedded in their holy scriptures, which are supposedly the word of god. And even if we consider for the moment that Jesus is the son of god, Revelation 2:22-23 (7) tells us that Jesus will kill innocent children if Jezebel doesn't correct her misdeeds. Would the son of god violate god's commandments if god existed?

Other logical inconsistencies

Pro believes that assuming something is true establishes proof that it is true; the design of the universe doesn't assume a creator: my opponent does. The watch analogy only demonstrates the point trying to be made, not that the point being made is valid.

Also, it doesn't logically follow that since all cells come from pre-existing cells, that the first cells had to have a ‘conscious creator'. There can be another logical and natural explanation. Cells are made up of proteins, which are made from amino acids. Some amino acids are electrically neutral and don't like water, while others have an electrical charge and interact with water; and those that don't interact with water can aggregate and can spontaneous form macromolecular folding leading to a closed protein structure (8). This can provide the foundation in which cells can evolve.

Closing comments

I agree that the universe in general is a hostile place, but I don't agree that the since life found a way to flourish on earth it proves the existence of god. Life follows from the direct result of the intrinsic natural law and properties of the cosmos. My opponent would have us believe that god established these conditions, but has yet to convincingly prove it. The concept of god is a man-made abstract idea to explain concepts we don't fully understand.

References

1.http://en.wikipedia.org...
2.http://www.bartleby.com...
3.http://www.biblegateway.com...
4.http://bible.cc...
5.http://bible.cc...
6.http://en.wikipedia.org...
7.http://www.biblegateway.com...
8.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
david77

Pro

This is clearly demonstrated in the Exodus 21:20-21(2) where slavery is considered acceptable and beating them is equally acceptable. If a benevolent God existed, would he disparage his creation and allow for unequal treatment?

God has to allow unequal treatment to allow free will to happen. if god were to stop all unequal treatments he isn't allowing free will to happen is he?

More important perhaps is that the passages in the bible can be contradictory.

All you have done is to pull out a couple select words out of context and declared the entire bible to be contradictory and should thus be considered untrue. Here's an example of how I can use it against you.

"My opponent" "are going to do" " beating" "that" "is" "acceptable" All I did was pull a couple words out of your entire argument to create a sentence to support my argument that you're a insane monster (random example). I predict your criticism is going to point out that what you did is slightly different than what I did, however the truth is you still pulled out a small section or words entirely out of context. The entire context can mean different things.

if god does exist and knows all actions before they occur, why would he allow bad things to happen to good people?

Why would he stop bad things from happening to good people? He gave us free will, if he stops anything then he has taken away the free will. Free will is absolute you cant just give someone free will then stop them every time they do something bad.

Specifically that god doesn't control our actions, but he just knows what we are going to do before we do it. This would imply that any decision to perform an action is irrelevant

Why? Elaborate more on this.

Would the son of god violate god's commandments if god existed?

Again you pulled that out of context, and this time you didn't even quote anything, you just pasted your own interpretation of the revelation.

Pro believes that assuming something is true establishes proof that it is true; the design of the universe doesn't assume a creator: my opponent does. The watch analogy only demonstrates the point trying to be made, not that the point being made is valid.

I accept this argument, This merely points out the weakness of my argument, it does not increase your argument's strength, to assume so is to have false black and white dichomity (sp?) meaning just because one side is wrong does not mean the other side is right. There could be a third side to this argument. Now I'm not saying my side is the wrong side, I'm saying my side is now slightly weaker, but that does not in any way strengthen your argument. There could be a third more correct argument besides natural accident.

My opponent would have us believe that god established these conditions, but has yet to convincingly prove it. The concept of god is a man-made abstract idea to explain concepts we don't fully understand.

My opponent would have us believe that god is a man-made abstract idea to explain concepts we don't fully understand, but has yet to convincingly prove it. God is the non intervention ruler of the universe.

Sure you can use the 2nd grade playground argument (joking about 2nd grade playground part...kinda..lol) and declare that my argument is unfair, I cant use your argument against you. But I hope simply using your argument against you will demonstrate clearly the flaws of your argument in the least insulting way. If you require more explanation to understand the point I'm trying to imply please say so, I wont insult you, I'll just assume I presented my idea/argument to you in the wrong way.
Chthonian

Con

Before I begin, I would like to clarify a potential problem that can arise in this debate: my argument is by no means meant to disparage religion or my opponent's belief system. My only intention is to demonstrate that the god of the bible, the conscious creator, can be disproved with evidence that is often used to prove him.

Some of this evidence I have presented thus far comes from the bible. If at any point my opponent believes that I misinterpreted a biblical passage, than it is important for pro to properly interpret it for me: show me why it has been misinterpreted; don't just tell me I have done so.

What I hope to do this round is rebut my opponent's criticisms and provide additional evidence to disprove the claim that the god of the bible exists.

Rebuttal

My opponent suggested that god allows unequal treatment of man so that ‘free will' can happen. My contention is that if this is true, than the action we ‘choose' has already been determined, thus our ‘free will' to decide is not free. For example, if god knows that I am going to debate David77, then my "decision" to do so has already been established and thus I didn't actively make a choice; I just followed what was destined to be.

Also, I didn't pull select words out of context, I provide multiple passages to demonstrate that there are aspects of biblical scripture that appear contradictory. In my view, the contradictions I established are evidence that the biblical god doesn't exist and is a product of man's imaginative mind.

My opponent also contends that a benevolent god would not stop bad things from happening to god people, because it would hamper ‘free will'. But to me, this is a post hoc rationalization to provide a reason for why a benevolent god would allow evil; and this does not provide any evidence that god exists. Moreover, if god we truly benevolent and omnipotent he would have the wherewithal and impetus to prevent malicious acts, especially on those who faithfully adhere to his commandments. But even more intriguing here is why god even wanted his creation to have free will, if his intention is for us to follow his commands.

One very salient point proposed by my opponent is that demonstrating weakness in ones argument does increase the strength of another. While I agree that this is a true statement, what I have done in the preceding rounds was, in part, to demonstrate the weakness of the evidence and the reasoning that has been provided as means to show to that my opponents' conclusion isn't well supported. Further, I then used that evidence to show how it can actually lead one to an opposite conclusion. And I agree that there may be a third argument here but that is not relevant to the position I am taking in this debate.

My position is that the god of the bible can be shown not to exist by the very nature of the evidence used to establish his existence. And I would be very grateful to my opponent if she would explain more about how god can be both interventional as seen in the parting of the red sea and non-interventional as see with giving humans ‘free will'. To me this contradiction is evidence that the god of the bible is merely a man-made idea, and thus doesn't exist outside of man's mind.

Additional argument

In the preceding rounds there has been some discussion regarding the complexity and the design of nature as evidence of god. But this very notion begs the question of whether the design we have is optimal from an engineering standpoint.

For example, Chlorophyll is green pigment that plants use to generate energy for life, but black chlorophyll would be more advantageous because it can absorb more radiation than green chlorophyll (1). So, if a conscious designer existed why would he place such a limit on the ability of plants to produce food for its self; especially since man needs to eat plants to help sustain his life?

Another example of a sub-optimal design is the female fallopian tube. During an ectopic pregnancy, the fetus attaches to the fallopian tube killing the developing baby and often times damaging the fallopian beyond repair (2). If a conscious creator does exists then why would he have established the reproductive system with such an obvious flaw?

These examples clearly demonstrate that natural design is not optimal and would suggest that god is either not omnipotent or he just doesn't exist. For me, this is evidence suggests a conscious creator doesn't exist. And it should be noted that the apparent suboptimal design of animals has sparked a very interesting discussion regarding evolution on this very site: http://www.debate.org...

In closing, I sincerely hope that this debate doesn't denigrate into a battle of emotional wills. Our subjective opinions are not a factor in this discussion nor should they be used to weigh the validity of the evidence presented. This debates hinges on the objectivity of facts and the logic used to support them.

References
1.http://en.wikipedia.org...
2.http://www.mayoclinic.com...
Debate Round No. 3
david77

Pro

I misinterpreted a biblical passage, than it is important for pro to properly interpret it for me: show me why it has been misinterpreted; don't just tell me I have done so.

Just keep interpreting it until it stops contradicting itself, that's what Christians do.

I would like to clarify a potential problem that can arise in this debate

You really think that I'm so immature to devolve into name calling and pissing match with you? I'm insulted.

My contention is that if this is true, than the action we ‘choose' has already been determined, thus our ‘free will' to decide is not free. For example, if god knows that I am going to debate David77, then my "decision" to do so has already been established and thus I didn't actively make a choice; I just followed what was destined to be.

It appears from my interpretation of what you have said that you don't understand free will. Just b/c you know the future does not mean you control the future......it just means you know the future.....that's all. God can know what you will do w/o forcing you to do it. You still have free will. Your logic appears flawed to me.

But to me, this is a post hoc rationalization to provide a reason for why a benevolent god would allow evil;

So? Doesn't make it wrong.

and this does not provide any evidence that god exists

You claimed that god would stop evil, but since evil happens we can conclude that god doesn't exist. I was disagreeing, based on the rationale that it would hamper free will.

if god we truly benevolent and omnipotent he would have the wherewithal and impetus to prevent malicious acts, especially on those who faithfully adhere to his commandments.

I disagree. When you raise a child you don't protect your child from all injuries. You let the child get scraped on the knees a couple times to toughen him/her up. It's truly benevolent to allow pain rather than stopping it.

But even more intriguing here is why god even wanted his creation to have free will, if his intention is for us to follow his commands.

How would an answer to this question prove or disprove god?

And I would be very grateful to my opponent if she would explain more about how god can be both interventional as seen in the parting of the red sea and non-interventional as see with giving humans ‘free will'. To me this contradiction is evidence that the god of the bible is merely a man-made idea, and thus doesn't exist outside of man's mind.

If you interfered with free will then you have no free will. How many times do I need to say this? Free will is absolute.
You can't give free will then stop all actions (or slow them) that you don't like, otherwise you can't call it free will.

If a conscious creator does exists then why would he have established the reproductive system with such an obvious flaw?

I remember an atheist providing me an similar argument. He said that engineers could make much better legs for zebras and have them run faster. The counterargument I presented to him is that lions would then starve to death. Nature is in balance. God can't make things perfect on earth, because then there would be no balance in nature. Flaws need to exist, for other animals to take advantage of the flaws so they could survive.

Now I understand that this doesn't entirely (or directly) contradict your argument. However look at the principle, the evidence that things are not perfect is actually evidence that god has thought out things more than we did. If all births were flawless and perfect think about what other things in universe would be thrown off balance. The population would explode even more.

In closing, I sincerely hope that this debate doesn't denigrate into a battle of emotional wills. Our subjective opinions are not a factor in this discussion nor should they be used to weigh the validity of the evidence presented. This debates hinges on the objectivity of facts and the logic used to support them.

I'm offended that you are worried about this debate denigrating, that shows what you think about me and this debate.
I may not use formal debate language (mostly b/c I never had been in a formal debate) but I can easily contain my emotions. For example I'm offended by what you say but I haven't yet insulted you back (not in a way that I know of consciously).

Allow me pose you an informal augmentative point (I don't even know if this sentence is grammatically correct). What about faith? I'm sure that if you debated against Christians enough you've heard of that word "faith". How would you address that argument?
Chthonian

Con

Before I begin, I would like to point out a personal opinion here: I admire my opponent for taking the position she has in this debate; and I think she is a very courageous individual to allow her convictions to be openly challenged in a public forum.

If my opponent was insulted by my comments, than I am truly sorry; it was not intentional. Ironically, I was only trying to preempt the possibility of being misinterpreted, so it would be known that I am trying not to offend her.

In the debates that take place in the ether of the Internet, there are no non-verbal cues in which to properly gauge an opponents' disposition on the matter being discussed. Thus, there is no frame of reference to determine whether ones words and thoughts are offending. In this case, I think I may have internalized the example Pro used to argue that I am an "insane monster", which prompted me to declaratively state my concerns.

Is free will absolute?

My opponent keeps harping on free will as though it is an absolute phenomenon; but has never actually proved that it exists. It is clear that it exists to her: for her it is god's will, because to my opponent the god of the bible exists. But this is circular logical because the premise is derived from the conclusion. In order words, in order for free will to exist, god has to exist; but this is exactly what we are debating. So, free will can't be used to prove that the god of the bible exists.

My comments on free will thus far have been used to demonstrate that if an all-knowing, all-power god exists and he wants us to follow his commandments, than free will is illogical, irrelevant and unfree. Thus showing that he does not exist, because how can an all knowing god be illogical?

Last, my opponent has not proper discussed what she believes free will is. For example, is it separate from the body? From my perspective, free will may actually be hard-wired into the structure and function of our brains. This is to say, free will may just be a by-product of the physical nature that constitutes our neural networks. This can be evinced by injuries to the prefrontal cortex that affect decision-making ability (1). So, if free will is absolute and an all-powerful god exists, then why would he allow it to be changeable when it can be detrimental to the individual?

Pain as a measure of love

My opponent brought up the issue that a benevolent god--and parents—would/should allow pain. I categorically disagree with this statement. As a father, I would do everything in my power to prevent my son from feeling pain, even if it means bring pain to myself. In my view, pain is a physiological adaptation to ensure that animals withdraw from harmful stimuli.

My son doesn't have to experience pain to understand the beauty of his existence, nor does he have to experience pain to live a fulfilling purposeful life. But maybe for good measure, the next time I am at the playground with my son I will throw him off the jungle gym to toughen him up a bit, show him what life is reality about and how much I love him .

The logical extension of my opponent's pain point would be that if someone is dying of painful metastatic bone cancer (2), this is god's way of demonstrating love for his creation. I think not. For me it establishes proof that the god of the bible does not exist. From my perspective, a benevolent god would do the same thing I would do as a parent.

But more to my original point: If a benevolent god exists why would he allow others to act maliciously towards those faithful to his commandments? Romans 8:28-30 (3) tells us that god works for the good of those who love him. And it goes on to suggest that god has actually chosen those who are predestined to conform to his will. The reality is that god doesn't work for the good of those who love him because he allows Christians to be killed in vain. (4), And if what is written in Romans is correct, than those who love god have been chosen to do so and thus don't have free will.

Closing comments

If one is going to prove that good is an all knowing and all powerful goodhearted being, then one has to demonstrate this with sound logical reasoning. Conceding to the point that nature is flawed is tantamount to stating that god is flawed and thus god is not all knowing and all powerful; and therefore is proven not to exist.

Further, my opponent concedes the point that the bible can be contradictory, but that I should continue to interpret it until it is no longer contradictory. But once something is shown to be logically inconsistent, how can these inconsistencies be over come by further analysis? Do believers in the bible just conveniently over look passages that appear to not make sense?

Finally, my opponent has put forth a point about faith. But we are not debating faith in god; we are debating proof of god. Faith by its very definition is not based on proof (5). So, one doesn't need proof to have faith in god.

References

1.http://brain.oxfordjournals.org...
2.http://orthoinfo.aaos.org...
3.http://www.biblegateway.com...
4.http://www.asianews.it...
5.http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 4
david77

Pro

I think I may have internalized the example Pro used to argue that I am an "insane monster", which prompted me to declaratively state my concerns.

Ah I see what caused you to want to declare your concerns, but that was simply an example used to help you understand my argument. Which was essentially you can use quotes or words out of the bible to make the bible sound different than it really does sound in context.

I will address the love as pain argument first.

My opponent brought up the issue that a benevolent god--and parents—would/should allow pain.

Just because you wouldn't do it doesn't mean god shouldn't do it.

But maybe for good measure, the next time I am at the playground with my son I will throw him off the jungle gym to toughen him up a bit, show him what life is reality about and how much I love him .

No god simply just allows humanity to sustain injuries, god doesn't cause it. So throwing him off the jungle gym is little bit different than allowing him to fall off the jungle gym every once in a while.

The logical extension of my opponent's pain point would be that if someone is dying of painful metastatic bone cancer (2), this is god's way of demonstrating love for his creation. I think not. For me it establishes proof that the god of the bible does not exist. From my perspective, a benevolent god would do the same thing I would do as a parent.

I honestly believe that once I have kids I won't raise my kids to be wimps (maybe a poor choice of words), because I would rather my kids to be exposed to reality as much as possible to prepare him/her for the real world.

(3) tells us that god works for the good of those who love him. And it goes on to suggest that god has actually chosen those who are predestined to conform to his will. The reality is that god doesn't work for the good of those who love him because he allows Christians to be killed in vain. (4), And if what is written in Romans is correct, than those who love god have been chosen to do so and thus don't have free will.

I don't want to argue about that specific logic since it would take several rounds to do so and we're on the last round.

Free will

My opponent keeps harping on free will as though it is an absolute phenomenon; but has never actually proved that it exists.

Good point

But this is circular logical because the premise is derived from the conclusion.

I understand this and I won't argue with this.

My comments on free will thus far have been used to demonstrate that if an all-knowing, all-power god exists and he wants us to follow his commandments, than free will is illogical, irrelevant and unfree.

I have failed at explaining to you that I don't see how you reached that conclusion. I simply don't believe that knowing the future is the same as controlling the future.

Last, my opponent has not proper discussed what she believes free will is. For example, is it separate from the body? From my perspective, free will may actually be hard-wired into the structure and function of our brains.

It doesn't matter where it comes from as long as it exists does it? If it is separate from the body, or in the brain does not prove or disprove god at all. This specific question is irrelevant to the argument. Although I do believe that god has put free will in our physical brain.

This is the last round of the argument but I'm going to skip the closing statement, since I always find them slightly illogical and insulting. I thank con for accepting this debate with me.
Chthonian

Con

I want to thank David77 for instigating this debate. It has been very enlightening. My opponent's strong convictions and unwavering religious faith can clearly be felt throughout the entire discussion.

Rebuttal

My opponent suggests that how I protect my creation (i.e., my son) from harm doesn't necessarily apply to what god should do with his creation. This may be true but if god is said to be benevolent, then why wouldn't he do everything in his power to ensure his creation doesn't needless experience pain? This is because he is either not benevolent or he just doesn't exist. I am pretty sure you know where I stand on this matter. Pro goes on further to state that god doesn't cause pain, but this flies in the face of Deuteronomy 32:39 (1), referenced in the first round, where god does in fact cause pain through the wounds he inflicts.

Points conceded by pro

There have been a couple of points throughout this debate that my opponent concedes. First, my opponent informs me that the bible is god's instruction manual for mankind, thus suggesting that it is the word of god. But Pro concedes that the bible can be contradictory. She goes on to state that one should keep interpreting the biblical passages to clarify any contradictions. For me, this doesn't make much sense since you can't clear up inconsistencies with further explanation. So, if the bible came from god and it is full of inconsistencies, then he isn't the all-knowing being he is made out to be. Second, my opponent concedes that free will can't be used as evidence of god, because: 1) she never proved it actually exists; and 2) because she agrees that the premise of a god given free will is derived from the conclusion that god exists, thus it is a logical fallacy.

Reasons to vote for con

Pro raised many points during this debate to provide proof of god, but none of them have thoroughly establishes tangible evidence of his existence. Further, I successfully refuted every indirect claim she has provided.

Moreover, during round 1, I established the unlikelihood of ever been able to empirically demonstrate the objective material existence of god, shifting the burden of proof to pro; this was never addressed.

I have also clearly and consistently demonstrated that the evidence used to prove the existence of god can also be used to disprove him, which suggests to me that god is nothing more than a man-made idea developed to explain the unexplainable.

Reference

1.http://bible.cc...
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by david77 5 years ago
david77
what the- how did that happen, I didn't mean to type that, I meant second law of thermodynamic
Posted by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
Second Law of Aerodynamics, eh?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
david77ChthonianTied
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: Cthonian gave sources, unlike david, even in situations demanding it. David misspelt repeatedly. Chthonian had some arguments rebutted adequately, but all of david's affirming clashes Chthonian refuted and david used some weak techniques throughout (for example, regarding claim that Chthonian took the Bible out of context, he did not provide fiat/the 'correct' interpretation. Therefore, the most pro-favoured conclusion is that it is possible to take the Bible out of context.