The Instigator
TG2333
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
NiqashMotawadi3
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

which makes more sense ? islam(christianity)(judaism)(pro) vs atheism( con)

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 4 votes the winner is...
NiqashMotawadi3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,088 times Debate No: 40803
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (4)

 

TG2333

Pro

Hello my name is hamza my friends call me hamzay, and were gonna be debating about what makes more sense ?, i'm going to be standing for islam, christianity, and judaism, but the main one i'm focusing on is islam so lets begin

Rules:

1_ everything you say needs a proof
2_ You can't link to untrusted websites like wiki,yahoo answers,etc ,etc
3_Respect
4_ No offensive or disrespectful arguments
5_ Read the second one
6_ You don't know what are you talking about or you're not 100% sure don't type it
7_ Introduce your self for this round *And* begin first with your argument
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

INTRODUCTION

I'm an agnostic and Pro has agreed in the comments' section that agnosticism could be defended by Con, so my case is that agnosticism is more sensible than the other theological positions.

DEFINITIONS

In the English language, the word "sensical[sic]" doesn't exist. The opposite of "nonsensical" is oddly "sensible."

More Sensible: Having or showing more good sense or judgment[1].

Agnosticism: The belief that the truth values of certain claims such as religious and metaphysical claims are unknown[2].


MY CASE

A.1-1 Agnosticism as the neutral position.

According to the burden of proof, the person who claims that statement P is true is supposed to provide proof for his positive claim. If he fails, then the neutral or default position is to be agnostic or undecided about the matter. For instance, if someone fails to prove that "global warming exists," this doesn't mean that the position to take is "global warming doesn't exist" but rather "I'm undecided/agnostic on such matter until good evidence on whether it exists or not is provided." In other words, agnosticism is the neutral position to take when reasonable proofs are not provided.

A.1-2 The Problem of multiple interpretations

Suppose we have many people gathered in a room, and suddenly we get different interpretations from them about a figure walking in.

Person A says, "It's a donkey."

Person B says, "It's a horse."

Person C says, "It's two camels."

Person D says, "It's three humans."

Person E says, "Nothing walked in."

Person G says nothing and remains undecided.

Etc...

Person G has taken the agnostic position. As long as the suggested scenarios are not supported with good evidence, Person G can rest assured that his agnosticism is more sensible than the rest of the positions.

In this debate, I have taken Person G's position. Pro's role is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Islam is a well-supported position, and my role is to undermine his evidence to show that it makes more sense to remain agnostic.

A.1-3 Failure of risk-factor analysis for theological positions

Risk-factor analysis is caricatured by some theists through the Pascal wager fallacy that can be summarized as, "It is better to believe in God, since if you're atheist and he exists, you're doomed, but if you're theist and he doesn't, you have nothing to lose."

Truth of the matter, this is an over-simplification which takes for granted God's punishment and the existence of an afterlife, when there are almost infinite possibilities of what could happen after death, if anything does happen. For instance, you can be judged by a God who only values skepticism, you can be judged by your mother's ghost on how good you were to others, you can be left alone, you might be judged by a group of aliens on how healthy you were in their simulation, etc. There are many possibilities and so we can't really do a risk-factor analysis for theological positions.

The diagram below only shows risk-factor analysis based on what the major theological positions say about the consequences of other positions, knowing that it glances over multitudes of possibilities. A proper risk-factor analysis that evaluates Islam and agnosticism would look like the diagram below but with millions of additional columns. Hence, I posted the diagram here to illustrate that point.


Large image: http://i.imgur.com...


SUMMARY

I've shown that based on the principle of BoP, agnosticism is the neutral/default position to take if certain positions on a matter are not established with good evidence or reasonable proof. I've also shown that a risk-factor analysis does not work here and so we cannot adopt a position without evidence but solely based on risks, as there are multitudes of unknown, possible consequences. Pro's only chance of winning this debate is to support Islam with good evidence, and that is very difficult.

CITATIONS

[1] merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sensible‎
[2] "agnostic, agnosticism". OED Online, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press. September 2012.

Debate Round No. 1
TG2333

Pro

I thank my opponent for his argument, it was really interesting.

Not trying to be rude but my opponent didn't say why does it make more sense but he only explained to me it's definition and he gave me examples, but he didn't say why does it make *more* sense.

My opponent has to take a side or he won't be making any progress in this debate,you're gonna either defend atheists or defend the people of the book which is Christianity, Islam, Judaism , you can't come here saying "i'm not sure" because if you can't convince your self how are you gonna convince somebody else.

" you might be judged by a group of aliens"

We are aliens too, cats are aliens, dogs are aliens, it depends from what perspective your looking from, meaning an alien on some planet would think that everything on planet earth is a creepy disgusting alien, so if an alien will judge us in the afterlife, so can a human.

Now it's my turn to explain why Islam makes more sense, and i'm going to be talking like if i was talking to an atheist and not agnostic.

*HOW DID THE UNIVERSE COME INTO EXISTENCE*

Scientists say that the universe came from the big bang, which is true, now we know that it's from the big bang, but how did the big bang come from *NOTHING*, space was black with no matter, no heat, no light, it was just black, it is nonsense that the universe came from nothing.

*WHO MADE THE BIG BANG THEORY*

The Person who fathered and developed The Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest, he found it mentioned in torah, bible i don't know where does it say it in the bible or the torah but i do know where does it say it in the quran, the quran existed before 1400 years ago who could've have mentioned that in the quran? , this video well show you 5 or 6 scientific, theres 6000 verse and 1000 verse that talks about science, it's in English so don't worry about it, the title is just in arabic.

https://www.youtube.com...

*WHAT IS ISLAM*

Islam is just for telling us that there is one god, who created everything.

*WHY DOES A WOMEN NEED TO WEAR A HIJAB ? *

Please watch the videos there really fun to watch!

https://www.youtube.com...

*MOHAMED ISN'T THE FOUNDER OF ISLAM*

Mohamed wasn't the founder of islam, islam existed long time ago when humans first appeared on earth, first came judaism then christianity then islam, 1 2 3, islam is the last religion, the quran is the final testament, and Mohamed is the final prophet.

*WHAT SCIENTIFIC VERSES IN THE QURAN ARE MENTIONED THAT YET ARE NOT DISCOVERED*

it explains that theres 7 heavens the people who study the quran say that until now it's not confirmed on what it is, in the quran it says that it was one sky but after the the big bang exploded, it separated it into 7 skies, so mybe it means that the planet is the first sky, then the solar system is the second, then the third one is the galaxy, then the forth one is something else orbiting around something else, then the fifth one is that something is orbiting around something else, it keeps going on and on until the 7th one which is were the big bang started, or simply 7 heavens are 7 dimensions.

*WHAT ARE YOU REQUIRED TO DO TO BE A MUSLIM*

you have to say the shahada, believe in christianity and judaism, believe in jesus christ and all other prophets

*ISLAM SUPPORTS SCIENCE*

theres many verses saying to read and write, and to study, the only one that i remember now is this one

اقْرَأْ بِاسْمِ رَبِّكَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ (1) خَلَقَ الْإِنسَانَ مِنْ عَلَقٍ (2) اقْرَأْ وَرَبُّكَ الْأَكْرَمُ (3) الَّذِي عَلَّمَ بِالْقَلَمِ (4) عَلَّمَ الْإِنسَانَ مَا لَمْ يَعْلَمْ

*CONGRATULATE AN ATHEIST FOR THINKING!!*

https://www.youtube.com...

*WHY DON'T MUSLIMS EAT PORK*

https://www.youtube.com...

good luck !!
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

DISCLAIMER

To win this debate, Pro was expected to provide good evidence that supports Islam . He has not done this so far. Pro instead directed me to FOUR youtube videos hosted on Islamic channels.

Pro's 2nd rule, "You can't link to untrusted[sic] websites like wiki,yahoo answers,etc ,etc"

But Youtube is a trusted website? Pro even used the Youtube links not just as non-trusted citations but as his own arguments(e.g look what that video further says), and that goes against DDO standards.

Pro's 1st rule, "Everything you say needs a proof."

Pro did not follow his rule but provided baseless assertions: (1) "islam existed long time ago when humans first appeared on earth," (2) " 6000 verse[sic] and 1000 verse[sic] that talks[sic] about science" (3) "Mohamed is the final prophet," etc.

Pro has violated his own rules in the debate. I leave it to the voters to decide what penalty he deserves.

Pro argues, "so if an alien will judge us in the afterlife, so can a human."

Rebuttal: I don't see how that disproves anything I said.

Pro argues, "you can't come here saying "i'm not sure" because if you can't convince your self[sic] how are you gonna convince somebody else."

Rebuttal: Pro seems to believe that you only convince people of being sure on matters when that is blatantly false. If I undermine evidence given for position X, then I convince people of being agnostic/undecided about it, unless Pro can disprove the philosophic principle of the burden of proof.

I shall try to refute all Pro's baseless arguments in my next rounds as I have a 4000 character limit and I need to further develop my case.

MY CASE

Agnosticism deals with the level of certainty one has in a certain belief, whereas Atheism deals with whether I lack belief in God or not. Agnosticism and atheism are not two different positions. I'm personally an agnostic atheist.



In the first round, I established why I'm an agnostic(not specifically why I'm an agnostic atheist) and why agnosticism is more sensible than Pro's position:

P1- Agnosticism is the belief that the truth values of certain claims such as religious and metaphysical claims are unknown.

P2- Based on the burden of proof principle, agnosticism is the more sensible position one should have if something is not established to be true or false with good evidence.

P3- There is no good evidence yet presented for Islam.

Conclusion: Agnosticism is more sensible than Islam.

...

To establish my position for "agnostic atheism" per se, I shall use another deductive argument...

P1- A person who is agnostic about the existence of God cannot live life without assuming that God does exist or doesn't exist for practicality purposes, ergo, he must be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist in practice, where "theist" includes all theistic positions such as monotheist, deist, polytheist, pantheist, etc.

* For example, if I'm undecided about marrying someone then I have not married that person yet or have married that person although I'm undecided. So I'm either married or unmarried in practice although I'm actually undecided on the issue.

P2- Agnostic atheism is restraining yourself from believing God's existence because of a lack of good reasons, while agnostic theism is believing in a theistic position regardless of the lack of good reasons.

P3- It is more sensible to restrain yourself from believing in something you find no good reasons to believe in than to believe in something without good reasons.

Conclusion: Agnostic atheism is more sensible than Agnostic theism.


SUMMARY

Being a "pure agnostic" is impossible; for practicality purposes, one should either live life as an atheist or adopt a theistic position. I've shown through deductive logic and the BoP principle, that is more sensible to be an agnostic than it is to be Muslim. Then I showed in this round that is more sensible within agnosticism to be an agnostic atheist than an agnostic theist. Hence, I argued for a form of "atheism" and showed how it is more sensible than Islam.
Debate Round No. 2
TG2333

Pro

Hello, i thank my opponent again for his debate.

*To win this debate, Pro was expected to provide good evidence that supports Islam . He has not done this so far*

i can say the same thing about you too, you did not prove to me why agnosticism or atheism makes more sense, you just told me definitions and examples for that definitions which i don't care about, in my opinion i took my time more and wrote more.

This debate isn't about getting a good evidence to support something, but it's about getting a good evidence to prove what makes more sense.

* Pro instead directed me to FOUR youtube videos hosted on Islamic channels*
*But Youtube is a trusted website? Pro even used the Youtube links not just as non-trusted citations but as his own arguments(e.g look what that video further says), and that goes against DDO standards*

90% of my argument was all me typing, and 10% or even less of my argument are links, and i linked them because i didn't have that much characters left to type, and a proof for that is that i started linking videos at the last of my argument, because i didn't have any characters left, and the videos are a good reliable source because it's a Dr.zakir video and a ahmed deedat video, these are the only two who i watch when it's about islam.

*Pro's 1st rule, "Everything you say needs a proof.*
*Pro did not follow his rule but provided baseless assertions*

islam existed long time ago when humans first appeared on earth::: this is a fact in my religion, so providing a proof for you won't matter.

6000 verse[sic] and 1000 verse[sic] that talks[sic] about science::: there's no necessary proof for this, you want a proof go and open the book theres 6000 verse and 1000 that talks about science, and i won't be able to tell you the 1000 verse that talks about science, and i had a link to a youtube video, that explains 6 or 5 verses like the big bang, mountains preventing earthquakes, sperms(thats what there called in english right ? tell me if i'm wrong) and even how does the baby form in a womens billy, it even explains the layers that are in a women's billy, the 11 planets that are in our solar system, and there orbit, and that the sun spins on it's own orbit i believe and how planets orbit, it mentions evolution, it explains that the moon doesn't have it's own light but it's a reflected light from the sun, and alot more.

Mohamed is the final prophet:: again i can't proof something to an agnostic or an atheist that has no religion.

*Pro seems to believe that you only convince people of being sure on matters when that is blatantly false. If I undermine evidence given for position X, then I convince people of being agnostic/undecided about it, unless Pro can disprove the philosophic principle of the burden of proof*

Ok fine with me, i don't have anything to say about this

*There is no good evidence yet presented for Islam*

thats your opinian but not a fact

I don't have really anything to talk about because i nearly talked about everything that is in my mind right now in my last round, so if you don't mind i'm going to ask you a question :

1_ tell me why islam and christianity and judaism doesn't make sense

*It is more sensible to restrain yourself from believing in something you find no good reasons to believe in than to believe in something without good reasons*

No it is not sensible to not believe in something when you don't have a good reason not too, not only that it doesn't make sense but it also crazy to believe something that apreared from nothing, if somebody knocked on the door, and you came to open it and you find nobody, and you ask your self, but someone knocked on the door the door can't knock it self, so the universe can't come from nothing, it can't always exist because the universe is just like any other thing like trees, animals, and humans, and it's not a god.

good luck
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

DISCLAIMER

Pro did not provide a definition of "makes more sense" in his opening statement, although the term is vague and could have many different meanings and criteria. I took that step in my first round and defined "makes more sense" and then built my arguments based on that.

More Sensible(makes more sense): Having or showing more good sense or judgment[1].

It is now clear that Pro is rejecting the importance of good evidence as a necessary basis for good judgment, but simply arguing that his religion personally makes sense to him, while atheism doesn't. His resolution is self-defeating, subjective and untenable as one can use a similar approach and say that "apples make more sense than oranges, as there are things about apples which I understand and things about oranges which I don't."

If Pro wants to debate that resolution, then he should concede this debate and start another one that does explain his definition of "makes more sense" from Round 1.

Pro argues, "No it is not sensible to not believe in something when you don't have a good reason not too... if somebody knocked on the door, and you came to open it and you find nobody, and you ask your self, but someone knocked on the door the door can't knock it self,"

Rebuttal: What Pro gets wrong is that a knock on the door is a good reason to suspect that someone is behind the door. To draw further on this analogy, it is "nonsensical" to believe someone is behind the door without any good evidence(e.g doorbell, knock). Islam so far is "nonsensical" as it was not supported with good evidence.

REBUTTAL

Necessary conditions for a miracle-claim:

(C1) Revealed knowledge cannot exist before Mohammad's time.

(C2) Revealed knowledge cannot be scientifically inaccurate.

(C3) Qur'anic verses cannot be subjectively and wrongly interpreted.

(C4) Interpretation cannot commit the fallacy of the excluded middle or the Texas Sharpshooter logical fallacy.

Moon has borrowed light miracle-claim

Violation of C1: Anaxagoras(400-500BC) asserted centuries before the Qur'an was revealed that: ”The moon does not have its own light, but light from the sun.”[2] This knowledge was also known by Thales centuries before that[3].

Big Bang miracle claim

Qur'anic verse: "Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them..."

Violation of C4: The Qur'an says no such thing as the Big Bang but speaks of parting the actual Earth and the heavens. The Earth didn't exist at the time of the Big Bang.

Violation of C1: In Sumerian literature which precedes the Qur'an, we find the same claim in the Epic of Gilgamesh: “When the heavens had been separated from the earth, when the earth had been delimited from the heavens...”[4]

Seven-skies miracle claim

Pro claims that the Qur'an's seven skies are the sky, solar system and the Big bang.

Violation of C4: This is a classic example of a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy: A logical fallacy in which pieces of information that have no relationship to one another are called out for their similarities[5]. How are the Big Bang and the solar system skies?

Sun's orbit miracle-claim

Violation of C1: Hipparchus(190–120 BC) described with precision the elliptical orbits of the sun, and Babylonian astronomy, centuries before Hipparchus, spoke of the sun's orbit[6,7].

...

Pro then gives many reasons I found irrelevant to the topic like "Muslims cannot eat pork" and "Women in Islam wear Hijab".

SUMMARY

I've argued throughout this debate that agnostic atheism makes more sense than Islam, Christianity and Judaism as it shows a better sense of judgment based on the burden proof and insufficiency of evidence in Pro's position. Pro, on the other hand, has failed to provide good support for his position further proving my case.

[Citations in the comment section]

Debate Round No. 3
TG2333

Pro

***Anaxagoras(400-500BC) asserted centuries before the Qur'an was revealed that: "The moon does not have its own light, but light from the sun This knowledge was also known by Thales centuries before that***

Abraham and his people were the first ones to discover that the moon has has a reflected light, and Abraham had his own book to called ms'haf, Abraham existed 2000 or 1000 years before the torah, some of the scientific verses in the quran came from the bible and the bible came from the torah, so Abraham knew that the moon has a reflected light from his book , so this rule that you created***Revealed knowledge cannot exist before Muhammad's time*** won't apply on this because they all the books came from one god, first came Abraham and his book, then torah and zbor, then the bible, then quran

*** The Qur'an says no such thing as the Big Bang but speaks of parting the actual Earth and the heavens. The Earth didn't exist at the time of the Big Bang***

Sir this is a fail, because you didn't pay attention to * were* so it's not saying that earth existed at the time of the big bang, but it's saying that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, it's like saying that you were a part of your mother, and not only that but you even changed the verse, you probably got the verse from some untrusted website, so you broke the rules, and you even got this explanation probably from wiki so you broke the rules twice

the original verse is this ****Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, then We separated them, and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?" (Quran 21:30)**** ,

so now it makes more sense when i got the original verse, not this verse you got from some fake website , so now clearly it's talking about the big bang, what else could it be ? if it's not the big bang

so my opponent:

changed the meaning and played with the verse
and he got this explanation from wiki islam which is the worst website

like my opponent said you voters choose what punishment does he take

in Sumerian literature which precedes the Qur'an, we find the same claim in the Epic of Gilgamesh: "When the heavens had been separated from the earth, when the earth had been delimited from the heavens..."[4]

again there was the bible, and the torah before the quran which mentions the big bang

**How are the Big Bang and the solar system skies***

it doesn't mean skies like literally skies, i told you what it means in my other arguments

***Hipparchus(190"120 BC) described with precision the elliptical orbits of the sun, and Babylonian astronomy, centuries before Hipparchus, spoke of the sun's orbit***

i already answered you twice about this

i'll be waiting for your replay.
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

DISCLAIMER

Pro presented even more baseless assertions and logical fallacies, and went further to accuse me of things I haven't done. It seems to me that he is doing that in a desperate attempt to score some debate points. I will refute his accusations one by one in my refutation.

REFUTATION

Pro claims, "you even [1] changed the verse, you probably got the verse from some untrusted[sic] website, so you broke the rules, and [2] you even got this explanation probably from wiki so you broke the rules twice."

1- Qur'anic verse

The translation I presented: "Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them..."

The translation Pro presented: Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, then We separated them, and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?"

Both "were one piece" and "were a joined entity" have exactly the same meaning. I don't see how I changed the meaning if my translation conveys the exact meaning. It seems Pro is unaware that the Qur'an is in Arabic and has many English translations.

2- Explanation from Wiki?


I didn't use any "fake-website" citation for my explanation, but simply the explanation that is obvious to me in my five year study of Islam. Pro has went too low in accusing me of using non-trusted "ghost" citations, when I simply stated my explanation of the verse.

Big Bang miracle claim

In the Big Bang, the Earth was not even an entity and so Pro's explanation is false. The Big Bang is simply a starting point for the expansion of the universe which later resulted in the solar systems[1]. Moreover, I've shown that The Epic of Gilgamesh speaks also of a separation of the Earth and the Sky to describe how the Sky was separated from the ground. Pro has to present actual evidence that the Qur'an doesn't say that.

Pro claims, "the torah before the quran which mentions the big bang..."

Rebuttal: Where is your citation?

Seven-skies miracle claim

Pro argues,
"it doesn't mean skies like literally skies..."

Rebuttal: Then saying that it speaks of the Big Bang and the solar systems is a classic example of committing the Texas Sharpshooter logical fallacy. I don't even get how the Big Bang is metaphorically a sky.

Moon has borrowed light miracle-claim

Pro argues,"Abraham and his people were the first ones to discover that the moon has has a reflected light."

Rebuttal: Pro did not bother to offer one citation. I've done the research and couldn't find anything about Abraham discovering that the moon had reflected light. The earliest account I found was of Thales, ”The moon is lighted from the sun[2].” And Thales didn't require divine foreknowledge to discover this, but he did so through common sense and experimentation.

Sun's orbit miracle-claim

Pro dropped this argument.


MY CASE AGAINST ISLAM

Pro has failed to prove why Islam "makes more sense" as he didn't offer good evidence or trusted citations. Moreover, there are many reasons to doubt if Islam actually makes sense.

(1) From a Muslim perspective, an omniscient and omnipotent God failed three times and had to send three installments of divine foreknowledge to convince tiny dots, humans, to follow him.

(2) The revelation of the Qur'an took 23 years, which doesn't make sense as God could have immediately sent down his Islamic scripture in a book so it won't be altered/manipulated through oral citations.

(3) The Qur'an has many Surahs(chapters) that don't seem authentic, and it is nonsensical to have those in a book that is heaven-sent. A good example would be the short Surah, Surat Al-Masad, that personally attacks Abu Lahab and his wife, which is (a) out-of-place, (b) devoid of any moral lesson and (c) nothing more than a superfluous, personal rant.

CITATIONS

[1] Weinberg, S. (1993). The First Three Minutes: A Modern View Of The Origin Of The Universe.
[2] Doxographi on Thales, Aet. ii. 1 ; Dox. 327. Online reference: http://history.hanover.edu....
Debate Round No. 4
TG2333

Pro

**it seems to me that he is doing that in a desperate attempt to score some debate points**

doesn't it seem like you want to score points when you saying this ?, and when you said it you didn't want points but when i said it, it means that i want points ?, and your the one who is saying every round of yours that my arguments are baseless and such

**Both "were one piece" and "were a joined entity" have exactly the same meaning. I don't see how I changed the meaning if my translation conveys the exact meaning. It seems Pro is unaware that the Qur'an is in Arabic and has many English translations***

these are all the translations that this verse has and i don't know where did you get that one and you even ate half of the verse

Sahih International: Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?

Pickthall: Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe?

Yusuf Ali: Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

Shakir: Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were closed up, but We have opened them; and We have made of water everything living, will they not then believe?

Muhammad Sarwar: Have the unbelievers not ever considered that the heavens and the earth were one piece and that We tore them apart from one another. From water We have created all living things. Will they then have no faith?

Mohsin Khan: Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

Arberry: Have not the unbelievers then beheld that the heavens and the earth were a mass all sewn up, and then We unstitched them and of water fashioned every living thing? Will they not believe?

**I didn't use any "fake-website" citation for my explanation, but simply the explanation that is obvious to me in my five year study of Islam. Pro has went too low in accusing me of using non-trusted "ghost" citations, when I simply stated my explanation of the verse**

because the explanation you used is the same as the explanation in wiki, if you didn't then i'm sorry if you did then i'm not.

**In the Big Bang, the Earth was not even an entity and so Pro's explanation is false. The Big Bang is simply a starting point for the expansion of the universe which later resulted in the solar systems**

everything started from the big bang, we came from planet earth, planet earth came from a star and it goes on until you get to the starting point that started everything, so all of these atoms that are around you came from the big bang, there's another verse in the quran that mentions that earth was made from a smoky substance

**Where is your citation?**

**I don't even get how the Big Bang is metaphorically a sky**

i just made this, i know it's awful

http://www.debate.org...

(3) تبت يدا ابي لهب وتب@وامرأته حمالة الحطب

it's not personal, not only talks about one but in general all of us, you misunderstood the verse, Abu lahab was just an example, he was wealthy and he used his money against mohammed, and his wife used to put trash and limber at mohammed's door house , and mohammed didn't even talk to them he would just find the trash infront of his door and put it where it belongs at

(2)The revelation of the Qur'an took 23 years, which doesn't make sense as God could have immediately sent down his Islamic scripture in a book so it won't be altered/manipulated through oral citations.

so people would understand it. THE REST IS IN THE COMMENT BOX
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

SUMMARY

Pro's performance in this debate was utterly disappointing as he refused to give evidence or actual citations, but instead presented new baseless assertions in every round. In this round, I'm going to simply summarize what went on in this debate from arguments and sources.

Dropped arguments

1- Abraham was the first to discover moonlight.

2- Torah mentions the Big Bang.

3- Islam appeared on Earth at the times of Adam.

4- 1000 verse in the Qur'an about science.

5- Sun's orbit miracle-claim.

6- Moon has reflected light miracle-claim.

And many others...

Arguments

According to the BoP, Pro should provide good evidence for Islam to show that it is "more sensible" to follow. This was according to the definition of "makes more sense" which I provided after Pro failed to define such vague term in his opening statement. Throughout this debate, Pro did not show that Islam is "more sensible" or "sensible" (to begin with) as he failed to refute many discrepancies within the Islamic faith.

1- From a Muslim perspective, God failed three times to convince his inferior creatures, humans, to follow him and had to use Moses, Jesus and Mohammad to finally get it right. Pro simply did not understand this point and said that God succeeded with Jesus and Moses. Why then need a third installment called Islam?

2- In Mohammad's prophecy, Pro offers a apologetic that it took God 23 years to reveal the Qur'an to teach us patience, when I explained that this raises suspicions on Mohammad's prophecy and when it is clear that drawing suspicion on his prophet's message is something an omniscient God would avoid doing, especially that there are less risky measures to teach that.

3- The Surah about Abu Lahab is both out-of-place and superfluous in the Qur'an. Pro explains that Abu Lahab and his wife were Mohammad's enemies, but never explains why Allah had to include his Prophet's personal rants and insults in a book meant to be meaningful and universal.

Summary: Pro failed to prove why and how Islam is "more sensible. He did not even establish that Islam is "sensible" to begin with.

Sources

Pro argued, "the videos are a good reliable source because it's a Dr.zakir video and a ahmed deedat video, these are the only two who i watch when it's about islam."

Rebuttal: Youtube videos of two Islamic miracle-seekers are not "reliable sources." Reliable sources are "Edu" websites and academic papers like the ones I offered.

It is also important to note that Pro accused me of using non-trusted, ghost citations but failed to provide any shred of evidence. His assertions are built on his ignorance of why I quoted half of the verse(I did that as the second part of creating living things from water has nothing to do with the Big Bang).

Shifting the burden of proof

Pro continued his arguments in the comment-box, and tried to shift the burden of proof in his final words.

Pro claims, "So in order Con to win this round i want him to tell how did the big bang come out from no were and how did we get eyes( not simply evolution but i want you to explain to me how ?)"

Rebuttal: This is the fallacy of a loaded question, as it assumes atheists claim knowledge of the origin of the Big Bang, and a desperate attempt to shift the burden of proof. As an agnostic atheist, it is warranted in my position to simply say what most atheist scientists say: "I don't know what came before the Big Bang, and I won't take theistic claims of a magical sky-dady as a brute fact whether on evolution or the Big Bang."

---

Conclusion: As I established above using deductive logic, it makes more sense to be an agnostic atheist as long as Pro's position was not supported with good evidence, and provided that agnosticism is the neutral position and atheism is the practical position one should take in his/her neutrality. Pro utterly failed in addressing his BoP or my arguments, and did his best to derail this debate into side discussions.

I thank Pro for initiating this debate.
It was at least interesting.


Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TG2333 3 years ago
TG2333
THE REST OF THE ARGUMENT (2)

***Pro presented even more baseless assertions and logical fallacies***

for some reason you don't get it what means makes more sense, if i need to explain to you what it makes more sense i need to tell you why this, why that, why do we do that, why do we believe in that, why don't we believe in that, this is how you prove why it makes more sense, but you just told me about definitions and such.

END OF THE ARGUMENT
Posted by TG2333 3 years ago
TG2333
THE REST OF THE ARGUMENT

(3) and mohammed didn't even talk to them he would just find the trash infront of his door and put it where it belongs at.... so basically without a really long explanation it's saying that money won't have any value or it won't help you in the afterlife, no matter how wealthy you are.

(2) The revelation of the Qur'an took 23 years, which doesn't make sense as God could have immediately sent down his Islamic scripture in a book so it won't be altered/manipulated through oral citations.

so people would understand it and not just shove it in there throats immediately not understanding a thing from it, this is a simple example but not really related to this alot , don't do #####, if mohammed told them to not do this before they even know that this thing even exists people would start doing it, so basically don't tell them about it if there not doing it, they already know it ? then write it and say that they can't do that

(1) From a Muslim perspective, an omniscient and omnipotent God failed three times and had to send three installments of divine foreknowledge to convince tiny dots, humans, to follow him.

Can you tell me how is it a fail ? because it's how it worked and it wasn't a fail, Adam, Abraham, Moses, jesus, then mohammed can you explain it to me ?

I explained why islam makes more sense or why do i believe in it, when my opponent only told me definitions about what he believes in,**** So in order Con to win this round i want him to tell how did the big bang come out from no were and how did we get eyes( not simply evolution but i want you to explain to me how ?) *****
Posted by TG2333 3 years ago
TG2333
ok i'm back!
Posted by TG2333 3 years ago
TG2333
hey man, i'm not gonna post any argument today, because my friends just invited me to play with them EVE online, were gonna be spending a lot of time on that game lol, but anyways i'm going to be posting an argument tomorrow, and by the way i'm really enjoying this debate, you really making it hard for me lol, until tomorrow cya!
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
Citations for Round 3:

[1] merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sensibleR06;
[2] The Doxographists on Anaxagoras, Hipp. Phil, 8 ; Dox. 561 260-1.
[3] history.hanover.edu/texts/presoc/thales.html
[4] Gilgame", Enkidu and the nether world, Section 1.
[5] Bennett, Bo (2010). Logically Fallacious.
[6] Lambert, W. G.; Reiner, Erica (1987). Babylonian Planetary Omens.
[7] Lucio Russo, The Forgotten Revolution: How Science Was Born in 300 BC and Why It Had To Be Reborn, (Berlin: Springer, 2004)
Posted by Somecrap 3 years ago
Somecrap
@TG2333 and @NiqashMotawadi3 https://www.youtube.com... - here Ultimate Mathematics Generator of the Quran by Dr. Ali R. Fazely, a Ph.D. Particle and Astrophysicist. its not like the others speaking on words.. its 1 hour long but it will be good to see this... its talking about the quran composed with complex primes, composite , twin primes, TPS, TPC, lonely primes and the list goes on...
Posted by TG2333 3 years ago
TG2333
so i was just wondering, why aren't you writing an argument ?
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
Okay. Everything is clear now. Let's begin.
Posted by TG2333 3 years ago
TG2333
it means a valid proof
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
Rule 1 is not clear. I suppose you mean "reasonable proof."
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Luggs 3 years ago
Luggs
TG2333NiqashMotawadi3Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con for Pro's violation of his own rules, S&G to Con, Arguments to Con as Pro failed to meet his Burden of Proof, and Sources to Con for his strong citations.
Vote Placed by imsmarterthanyou98 3 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
TG2333NiqashMotawadi3Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro broke his own rules he provided no reliable sources which con did and pro dropped many of his arguments.Over all con had better arguments and conduct
Vote Placed by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
TG2333NiqashMotawadi3Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro easily broke his own rules 1, 2, and 6 losing conduct. Pro indicated he is not a native English speaker so I won't take points for S&G. Con appears to completely misunderstand BoP and explicitly stated that he didn't need evidence in some cases offer virtually no substantial argument. Pro broke his own sourcing rule while Con used reliable sources.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
TG2333NiqashMotawadi3Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made the rules and Pro broke his own rules, so as such conduct points go to Con. Cons arguments were better and Pro deserves to lose for this comment alone, "the 11 planets that are in our solar system". Con had better grammar and Pro made spelling mistakes. The most reliable sources also go to Con,as I agree that youtube is not a good source. Con defined what "makes sense" means and if Pro did not agree he should have made it more clear in round 1, also why did Pro not answer the agnostic position when it was agreed to?