The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Winning
2 Points
The Contender
shopkin
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

inferring the existence of God is reasonable

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 2 votes the winner is...
dairygirl4u2c
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 312 times Debate No: 84634
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

-thermodynamics (or general laws of energy if i'm stating thermodynaics wrong) and uncaused cause. energy.... it goes from high to low. our universe is going to the low end. it started at the high end. where did that high end come from? from something other than a higher energy? and the same goes for the uncaused cause. something coming from something else makes more sense than something coming from nothing. is GOd the uncaused cause? if he is, why can't the uinverse? well, the universe is like a clock that was set to tick. something had to set it.... that's what it looks like. or a cue ball that is rolling to break the balls... it looks like there had to be a stick. the stick begs the question of where it came from, but we have to draw a line and say there's a mystery.... we infer the stick simply because somehitng coming from something else makes more sense than something coming from nothing. there was nothing then something happened to hte nothingness. that's what it looks like. for energy or the uncaused cause, as far as we can see there was nothing, then something. we can have theoeries about multiple universes etc or an accordian universe but these are just theories. what we see is that it was nothing then something.,,, that's our best observation. id say energy and uncaused causes both lend itself to saying there is a God to explain it.

-Near death experiences. most atheists are no longer atheist after these. it strikes me as the most straightforward explanation to say a person died and went to the after life if that's what they say happened, cause that's what looks like it happened. ive seen atheists who insist the most straightforward explaination is that there is a chemical thing going on. i dont agree. i dont think there's a version of the afterlife inbedded in people's genes, but that's what happens on a common scale. it'd be one thing if only some people experienced it that way, but everyone who has the eperience says the same thing. there's tunnels, people say "it's not your time to die" etc. how is this imbedded in our DNA? how is this common? some people say ketamine gives NDE's. but they dont. they give example which sometimes are like NDEs. so it's not reproducable as far as we know.

-what appear to be miracles. these things dont happen to atheists. the burden is on them to show similar things happening to them.

-complexity. look at an eye, or a watch, etc. this is the weakest point but it is evidence nonetheless. i realize evolution and billions of years could cause complexity that we see.
shopkin

Con

how is god real? it makes no sense I mean how did he create the earth and all its people?
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

to us it's a mystery. that anything exists is amazing. but i just gave a bunch of arguments. id expect a little more from con.
shopkin

Con

just kidding i completly believe in god i thought you might know more information than i do
Debate Round No. 2
shopkin

Con

shopkin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
dairygirl4u2cshopkinTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff a round, so conduct to Pro.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
dairygirl4u2cshopkinTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture