The Instigator
ILL_logic
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
RationalTheist
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

science vs creationism

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 3 votes the winner is...
ILL_logic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,033 times Debate No: 45993
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (3)

 

ILL_logic

Pro

Tell me which god you believe in and why that god is the proof of all our existence
ROUND 1 - introduce yourself and why you believe in your religion
RationalTheist

Con

Hello,

My name is Wally, and I'm a Christian.

Reasons why I believe:

1. If we assume that Buddhism is right, then we would have to take this into consideration that a monk from Myanmar who died shouldn't have spoken to Jesus in hell, rather he was a devout Buddhist and worshiped Buddha. He is now a hardworking servant of Jesus preaching Christianity in a predominantly Buddhist society.

2. If we assume that Islam is true, then we would have to take this into consideration that Muslims would have witnessed Allah and His Messenger Muhammad, but this is false; they see Jesus instead.

3. If we assume Atheism is sane or correct, then we have to take this into consideration that why were these Atheists seeing Jesus and being tormented in hell in their temporal deaths.


Conclusion: If a near-death experience is predetermined by imagination (seeing things beforehand), people from different religions would not see Jesus, rather they would see their prophets. Since this is R1, I shall await Pro's response, and show why God exists.
Debate Round No. 1
ILL_logic

Pro

nice to meet you wally you this does not explain as to why you are a christian .

BUDDHISM- first i would just like to state that you can take buddhism as a religion for they devote thereselves to practices and not much into religion yes im saying you can practice buddhism without belief of the god of the bible (YAHWEH)

islam- the muslims see jesus as a prophet or a messenger and not jesus as the actual son of god

atheism - is atheism sane? hmm well if you are christian and believe in the teachings of the bible explain how sane it is for people to stone there children to death for disobeying there parents (DEUTERONOMY 21: 18-21) and if im correct jesus had long hair ? or was know of having long hair explain for me ( 1 corinthians 11:14 esv) and please explain how this is (sane) in the christian sense.... "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword: their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open (Hosea 13:16 ) and you question atheism as being sane ?

now i must ask do you believe christianity as a fact or a leap of faith?
RationalTheist

Con

I thank ILL_logic for his response. I cannot fully explain why I'm a Christian here, but there is also one more thing: there is evidence that Jesus existed, and there are tons of sound arguments for His existence, and another fact is, none of the other gods of other religions have no arguments, nor has anyone affirmed their existence with facts.

It's not my position to argue for the bad things that must have happened then. This is about arguing for the existence of God, but you can't necessarily say that stoning children is wrong because you have no objective moral values. I was saying that Buddhists are supposed to see Buddha in a near-death experience rather than Jesus, because it is merely predetermined by the person's mind, and Buddhism does not have any affiliation with the Abrahamic God. As I have not read the Quran, if Muslims think this, that does not make it true, unless it is explicitly stated in the Quran.

I think ILL_logic is misinformed on the definition of "sane," rather he thinks it means something such as "insane" or any relation to that word. The definition does not, however, mean this. It means reasonable or sensible. ILL_logic, while misinformed, says atheism is not reasonable!

The Universe Began to Exist

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause

2. The universe began to exist

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

4. If the universe has a cause, that cause is a timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, uncaused, beginningless, enormously powerful mind.

5. Therefore, the cause of the universe is a timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, uncaused, beginningless, enormously powerful mind.


1. We can obviously see that these premises are true. That said, if the universe did not have a cause, that means it would have to come from nothing, which is absurd. If something would be able to come from nothing, why don't we see this all the time? The universe is obviously not eternal, because [1] the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that the universe is running out of usable energy, and [2] if the universe was eternal, it would have ran out of usable energy by now.

2. Even if there was such a scientific (or otherwise) dogma about causality, the only thing that this tells us is that causality is ill-defined. Let's define another word, say "causality_b", like this: "Every event has a cause, except for the first event in the history of the system (universe). Every cause is an event." I don't see a reason why a universe governed by causality_b would be impossible to exist. Frankly, my assumption always was that this is closer to what physicists actually mean when they are talking about causality and the universe, like: "We will for now leave the question of the absolute beginning of the universe open, and just talk about what happened after that. And this 'after that' we will call 'causality'." - Along these lines. I'm not a physicist though, and I might be wrong. However, my point with causality_b still stands, independent of any dogma or physicist.

Ad Infinitum

1. An infinite past is impossible since you cannot have an infinite amount of anything. Infinity is a process, not a number - as you approach it, it runs off into the distance. Hence an infinite regress of causation cannot happen and is illogical. If you believe in actual infinities, then there must be some point of time an infinite quantity of time ago. The only way to terminate infinite regress is by a cause that is not subject to features of our 4D timespace. Hence you by necessity have to have an entity not of matte, not existing in our concept of time of immense intelligence. Even if we were to assume infinite sequence of events is true, it needs an initiation, and in the beginning, there would be no preexisting material. Many people claim there was absolutely nothing; and there is Hawkins for example. But any such opinions can only be based on faith, since we cannot have empirical evidence (which is by nature 4D phenomenon) for a transcendent 'dimension' which had to precede the universe, again because if 4D stuff preceded the universe, then it just cases an infinite regress as we then ask what led to that 4D stuff.

There are 4 possible options

1 - The universe is infinite

The universe cannot be infinite since an actual infinity is impossible



2 - The universe came from nothing

It cannot come from nothing since a nothing that has the potential to bring something into being fails to be a nothing, negating this option.



3 - The universe created itself

The universe cannot create itself since it has to exist first to bring itself into existence - again a logical impossibility.

4 - The universe is simply uncaused
The universe cannot be 'uncaused' since that either means the impossible infinite universe or a universe from 'nothing' which again is illogical.

[http://www.doxa.ws...]
[http://www.godandscience.org...]

Debate Round No. 2
ILL_logic

Pro

very well i will accept your for forfeit much respect to you and your time religion can not be proven as well as fairies ,bigfoot ,and the loch ness monster cannot be proven to be real /nor myth neither can yaweh or god if you will be proven to be fact or fiction it is determined on a leap of faith in which i accept leaps of faith faith meaning -strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
RationalTheist

Con

RationalTheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
BTW: I've watched Creationist vs Evolution debates around the world and very few win on debating style, arguments and their strength.
Nearly always it is those who satisfy the Confirmation Bias of the audience who wins the Debate.
Such as Evolutionists can never win a debate at the Creation Museum and Creationists can never win a debate at the NCSE auditorium.
The structure of the debate and debating skills are lost with a biased audience.
Same problem exists on D.o.
I count the strength of their arguments when I judge a debate.
Even if they are wrong, but their argument makes me think or have to check the sources to see if they have validity, then I will consider them as having posted a good and thus vote worthy argument.
That did not happen here on either side.
Con started off with I'm a Christian, which I consider Irrelevant, since the existence of a creator is not religion dependent.
His NDE (properly NDH) reference in his first argument is completely off topic.
So lost points altogether with his first introductory argument.
It was entirely irrelevant.
So I admit that his first argument turned my against him from that point onward.
So I admit he generated some bias against his arguments there.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Yes: ILL-Logic: My view was that you were rattled by his sudden exit, which made you think no further work was required when somebody says that they are walking.
Often it brings up an anger response instead of a continuation of the debate.
Thus it is bad manners, because it is disruptive to the flow of the debate.
Though you do need to read and refute what your opponent has actually posted.
Then it is you deciding and dictating what you consider is irrelevant and not just the Voter making up their own mind.
You also need to check the opponents sources, even if they are nonsensical.
Creationists have limited resources,
They have to rely on Creationist sites and the occasional evangelist sites.
Evolutionists have almost all the University sites on earth in their favor.
The National Center for Science Education is a great reference site:
http://ncse.com...
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
"Besides, if you do pose arguments, posing those that were defeated decades ago shouldn't count, it's a waste of space to continually counter the same old garbage, time and time again."

That's not how debates work. If your opponent makes weak arguments, you can easily refute them and score an actual win. If you don't want to respond to weak arguments, do not debate creationists. Besides, if you give him arguments because you personally can refute his opponent's arguments, that's an interventionist method, not a proper evaluation of the debate.
Posted by ILL_logic 3 years ago
ILL_logic
sagey i feel you are correct when my opponent FF he later put a comment on this board telling me he FF me being new to this site could not comment clearly cause i never saw the post comment button therefore i posted my response on the debate that was my mistake
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Pro had no reason to respond when the opponent has left the debate.
Walking out on a debate is unforgivable.
I had to do it with my first debates because I had to leave D.o altogether due to work and family commitments.
I'll likely have to do it again, but those cannot be helped.
But, in the process, I did not care about winning any and expected to lose the lot.
So should anybody who forfeits.
It's simply bad conduct/manners.
Thus the conduct point loss.
Besides, if you do pose arguments, posing those that were defeated decades ago shouldn't count, it's a waste of space to continually counter the same old garbage, time and time again.
It's the same as all Creationist literature, garbage defeated a century ago still appears in their literature, and scientists have to waste their time continually repeating counter arguments.
Creationists can never move on or discover new arguments.
Maybe because they do no research whatsoever or there is nothing for them to discover.
Creationism is a total waste of brain space.
Arguing against Creationism is the same waste of space and time.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
He only forfeited his final round. You failed to even respond to his Kalam cosmological argument. The fact you're winning this debate is because many biased voters happened to vote for you.
Posted by ILL_logic 3 years ago
ILL_logic
i did not ignore his arguments if you would pay attention directly after he posted his argument he forfeited why would i go on?
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
Lol. He ignored his opponent's arguments, no matter how old they are, dismissed them without evidence and he still got your vote Sagey?
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Yes Ill_logic, even the comment sections are full of irrational assumptions and ad hominem nonsense.
Posted by ILL_logic 3 years ago
ILL_logic
i do not know what "logic " that is a hell of a statement to make assuming that you have no idea who i am
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
ILL_logicRationalTheistTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con lost the conduct points by forfeiting, if you are going to debate, you should make sure you have the time to contribute to it. Otherwise expect to lose points. Arguments, Con's were not convincing at all, they are the same tired old arguments that are extremely unconvincing to rational, knowledgeable people, they were all defeated decades ago. Pro's Bible references were more convincing than Con's sources. Con didn't give Pro any reason to cite sources with his statement of forfeiting the debate, thus poor conduct. So I had to tie them on the sources issue.
Vote Placed by danielawesome12 3 years ago
danielawesome12
ILL_logicRationalTheistTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited the final round so conduct was easy, and his entire argument was based of a "leap of faith" with no explanation why he is a believer. S&G is a tie and sources are biased and go against logic so it favors pro but he had none so I can't award points.
Vote Placed by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
ILL_logicRationalTheistTied
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 Checkmark1 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: Although Con forfeited his final round, he had a very good conduct and was well-mannered. Moreover, Con provided good arguments for creationism that were never addressed such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Ad Infinitum absurdity. Those arguments are well-refuted, so I expected Pro to offer good refutations, but he simply personally attacked his opponent and submitted a line of insults and false comparisons that never addressed Con's arguments or refuted any of the premises: "very well i will accept your for forfeit much respect to you and your time religion can not be proven as well as fairies ,bigfoot ,and the loch ness monster cannot be proven to be real " This is misconduct and it is simply ignoring Pro's arguments by attacking his belief as a ridiculous one, when he has provided logically valid arguments that needed to be properly and reasonably refuted as they supported creationism. Therefore, arguments and conduct go to Con.