The Instigator
backwardseden
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bigdave
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points

If the god cannot show up in person for you to believe in it, Then why should you believe in it?

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...
bigdave
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/30/2020 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 477 times Debate No: 126146
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)

 

backwardseden

Con

If a god from any religion cannot show up in person and let you know what is expected of it, Then why should you believe in it? After all, That would not be your fault for you not understanding what it's laws rules and regulations are.
Take the supposed storybook character unproven god of print only of the bible. If it cannot present itself to you, Then it is not your fault that you do not believe in it. That would be this specific god's for not showing up and making things clear to you and thus letting you know who it is, What it is about, What can be expected of it, What its laws, Rules, And regulations are. After all, There's never been a word from it especially that big black book that no ignorant god would ever be stupid enough to use.

Prove this god of the bibe to exist.

dsjpk5 is disqualified from the voting procedures as he tries to pretend he's god and thus change the voting structure of who wins and loses here on DDO.
bigdave

Pro

Let us analyse CON's argument. It distills to three points.

#1 "If a god from any religion cannot show up in person "
#2 "and let you know what is expected of it"
#3 " why should you believe in it? After all, That would not be your fault for you not understanding what it's laws rules and regulations are. "

In round One, PRO will take point #1 ----"If a god from any religion cannot show up in person "

Con seems to want the universe to be material only. If Con cannot see it, Then to Con it does not exist.

There appear to be many things which exist but cannot be seen. Some are material and some are not material.

Within the material realm. . . . Atoms are unseen, But exist. Dark matter is unseen, But exists. Anti matter exists but cannot be seen. Air exists but cannot be seen. Quantum particles exist but cannot be seen. The universe in its entirety cannot be seen but exists. (1)

Within the non material realm, Radio waves exist, But cannot be seen. Ultraviolet light exists but cannot be seen. Gravity exists but cannot be seen. Infrared waves exist but cannot be seen. Consciousness exists but cannot be seen. Emotions exist but cannot be seen. ( 2)

Additionally there are these. . . . "THINGS WE CANNOT SEE, BUT KNOW THEY EXIST. . . . . Wind, Sound, Heat, Cold, Magnetism, Odors, WiFi, And taste ( 3 )

Beyond this there are many persons which Con has not seen, But their existence is not conditioned on Con's experience. Con has never seen PRO, But PRO exists nonetheless. PRO has never seen the actor Tom Hanks, But has seen his works in films. PRO does not doubt the existence of Tom Hanks. PRO could go on, But the point is made,

Thus it is shown that things can exist without our seeing them "in person"

I await Con's response.

(1) https://lonerwolf. Com/things-we-can't-see/
(2) ibid
(3) https://www. Godsotherways. Com/stories/2018/4/29/things-we-can't-see-but-know-they-exist
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Con

"Let us analyse CON's argument. "
Who is this "us" BIG DAVE in his outhouse outfit generalized by a scrotum soda pile of suds that thinks he's a tool for the right hand of a pile of a yeast infection resurrection? Right BIG Dave?

"Con seems to want the universe to be material only. If Con cannot see it, Then to Con it does not exist. "
Goodie for you that you left yourself an out with one word. That one word is "seems". So let me clarify. . .
There is no definition for a god because no human has ever been in the company of a god and been able to prove it. You cannot test nor can you demonstrate a god. It is impossible because you cannot define a god because none has been defined by anyone in the history of the human race because no god has ever been seen, Defined, Told to anyone through talking about/ oratory, Written about from a god's point of view as far as to how it can be tested, Demonstrated and thus defined. So you as a believer have no evidence to back up any claim to thus prove that any god from any religion exists. Got it?

So your next statement is immaterial. And so is the next following it. And so is the next trailing it. Oh, This is so easy. And guess what classe'? The next statement that succeeds those three other statements is also immaterial because they state the same man fricken thing that is inconsequential. Meaningless, Trivial, Unimportant, And not worth spending another dime on as my scrotum is far more important to my flying overbaked uterus with a giant S tattooed to it meaning "Snuffed Out". God is this boring.

And no. In no possible way can I take you seriously when you introduce the same damn fricken argument so many damn fricken times. AND you don't even know what I know or believe. You only took a stab in the dork, Or sorry dark and guessed. ARE YOU SERIOUS?

Needless to say, This debate is now closed. Bye.
bigdave

Pro

con asks who the "us" is in PRO's comment "Let us analyse CON's argument. ". Obviously, The "us" is the set of all debate. Org members who are following this debate. Ironically they are "unseen but they exist".

con then degrades into some Ad Hominem tirade.

con then states that "There is no definition for a god " PRO responds with Merriam -Webster's definition to wit "God : the supreme or ultimate reality" (1) con then says " You cannot test nor can you demonstrate a god. " This may be a "personal problem" for con. PRO knows several moments where PRO's action were in tune with the "universal vibration" and good resulted. Other times when PRO's actions were counter to the beat of the Universe, Harm resulted. Some call it Karma. Can this be tested? Each individual may test it for themselves.

To add humor con says "you don't even know what I know or believe". Isn't that your burden? It's your debate. Tell us what you believe instead you tell us what you DO NOT believe.

Now on to con's point #2. . . . . "If a god from any religion cannot show up in person and let you know what is expected of it, Then why should you believe in it? " The question itself reeks of materialism. Con wants to "see God". PRO covered this in round one. . . . Things that exist but are unseen. Beyond that con wants to enter the realm of ethics. Con wants to know what GOD expects of us. Much of ethical rules are based on interpersonal relations. Why do most of us drive on the right side of the road? It is the law, And it prevents at least some head on collisions. Where did that law come from? It came from the State ( which by the way is an unseen force ). This law is also in tune with the Universe, As it prevents mayhem. In our civilization the universe is called "cosmos" and the concept implies an order to the universe. The inverse here is "chaos" which implies a lack of order or law. Thus PRO asserts that there are laws at work in the Universe, Such as the gravitational constant, The speed of light, Causality, And chemical reactions. There are ethical laws that can turn chaos into cosmos, Such as "don't murder, Don't steal, Do honor family, Do honor pledges and contracts". These ethical laws derive from the order of the Universe. They are in tune with the cosmos. They come from that universal force some call God. God is the glue that keeps it all from falling apart. What does con offer as the order, The glue?

Thus point #1 is resolved. There are thing that exist unseen.

Thus point #2 is resolved. Ethical laws exist while the force that originated the laws remains unseen.

Point #3 will be looked at in round #3.

(1) https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/god
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Con

Wow. You really expect a dildo desire like you should actually be defunded where your weenie tot outhouse bungaloo respiratory problems begin? It figures that you MUST be a supposed christian because after all there is no such thing as a christian and CAN"T READ. So we"re, That"s you and I are going to 100% end this dee-bate right here and now"

"degrades into some Ad Hominem tirade"
When you show no intelligence and no education especially for the subject(s) that you claim to profess to have knowledge upon and you really don't and yet you pretend that you do by inventing excuses for it and or flatly lying about it AND you get caught at it as you clearly without question have, Then it is my absolute right to insult, Degrade, Humiliate and dehumanize you and or anyone that does this powderpuff imbecilic little minced mutton moron mechanical mind trick. This is taught IN COLLEGE. It is also taught that if you cannot back up your claims with evidence (and in no possible way have you been able to, You just blurted out nonsense and you know it) then you will lose every single genuine friend and loved one that you have. Try it! See how far you get. You MUST think I'm stupid and ignorant to literally fall for your pretend excuses that in no possible way can you back up with any kind of evidence - right? So WHY SHOULD I OR ANYONE DEAL WITH YOU GARBAGE TRASH GOOP? ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU CAN'T READ?

"You cannot test nor can you demonstrate a god. " This may be a "personal problem" for con. "
Actually um no. It"s a problem for you. It always will be. I"m an atheist. It"s not my requirement, Necessity, Need to prove your idiot imbecile terrorist god. That"s yours. The B. O. P. Is ---always--- no exceptions, None, Up to you. Billions of atheists are not under the gun to prove any god from any religion, You are.

"Can this be tested? Each individual may test it for themselves. "
Test what? How can anyone test something if they don"t know how to test something for which it has never been tested in the first place because you do not know what you are looking for in order to test for it? AND as previously stated "no human has ever been in the company of a god and been able to prove it". Continuing because you CAN"T READ " Written about from a god's point of view as far as to how it can be tested, Demonstrated and thus defined. So you as a believer have no evidence to back up any claim to thus prove that any god from any religion exists. " Duh. Now wipe that cheesy dullard whimsical apple pie soap sud gamma ray burst off of your gagging maw. It doesn"t gain any audience.

* Oh and btw, Since your yodeling Buddhist monk arabeic cabbage batbrain obviously thinks it is so smart, Then you explain to billions of theists exactly how "Each individual may test it for themselves. "
* Oh and btw, What if each individual finds nothing, 0, Kaput, Zilch, Nada?
* What if each and every individual such as yourself has to lie and invent excuses in order to make themselves seem more prominent and thus gain more intention as is the case with the worst president of all time, Donald barfing insect Trump?
* What if this supposed unproven storybook character god of print only thus turns out to be true and lies to you as it has done in the bible to its prophets?
You are as bright as a squeezed jellied turnip.

"you don't even know what I know or believe". Isn't that your burden? "
Nope. Not when your blubbering idiot boring Rubbermaid shallow idiotsville says "Con seems to want" which 100% means that you know me better than I know myself.

And you wasted the rest of your RD 1 by guessing at what I know but failed the flab jackhole miserably.

""If a god from any religion cannot show up in person and let you know what is expected of it, Then why should you believe in it? " The question itself reeks of materialism. "
Really? Wow. Then how did this supposed unproven character fabled god of print only talk to your prophets?
GE 12:7, And 17:1, And 18:1, And 26:2, And 32:30, EX 3:16, And 6:2-3, And 24:9-11, And 33:11, NU 12:7-8, And 14:14, JB 42:5, AM 7:7-8, And 9:1 God is seen.
EX 33:20, JN 1:18, 1JN 4:12 God is not seen. No one can see God's face and live. No one has ever seen him.
Talk about a supermassive hypocritical contradiction that you don"t even know about.

"Beyond that con wants to enter the realm of ethics. "
Well garsh there sporky, It"s you that is unethical when you make the sad miserable attempt right off the bot, Sorry, Bat in dreaming that you know me better than myself like a one trip porky.

"Why do most of us""
Oh jeez, Lecture time from someone who believes in a completely immoral UNPROVEN storybook character fabled god of print only AND cannot prove its existence AND MUST think it is better than everybody who has ever lived because NOBODY has ever been able to prove that any god from any religion has ever been able to, AND cannot define this unproven god because it has in no possible way defined itself to him to thus be demonstrated and tested from this god"s point of view, And cannot possibly defend its own actions.
Here"s something for Pro to look at"
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=M0t0LmQ0I2k - I Have Been in the Presence of God, Literally
I have no interest in Pro whatsoever anymore.
bigdave

Pro

Now onto point #3 ". " That would not be your fault for you not understanding what it's laws rules and regulations are. "

Is con saying that con should not be assessed blame for violating a universal concept of interpersonal relations? Are not atheists held to the same civil and criminal laws of the United States? Murder can be taken a priori as a violation of the universal or natural laws, Rules and regulations. Theft, Honor, Pledges and contracts again a priori must be and are upheld for society to function.

Thus con, As an atheist, Has no power to run counter to the universal laws. Having no power, Con would be held responsible without regard to con"s metaphysics.

Con certainly must have understood the rules of DDO when con set up this debate, And yet twice con acted like these published rules held no sway over con. In round #2 con said "Needless to say, This debate is now closed. Bye. " as if con had the power to suddenly and unilaterally break the contract. Then in round #3 the same anarchy is expressed by "you and I are going to 100% end this dee-bate right here and now" Again showing a contempt or an entitlement of "the rules don"t apply to me"

A further statement of "it is my absolute right to insult, Degrade, Humiliate and dehumanize you and or anyone " shows why con is in great need of limitation by civil or divine laws.

Con then is in error again by a total misunderstanding of the concept of "burden of proof"
PRO has committed a logical fallacy. Con set up the debate and while con posited only negative assertions in round #1 ( what con cannot see does not exist)
, PRO clearly refuted the negatives with examples of what exists unseen. . The burden then was for con to either refute or continue the argument. . Con did neither, Instead committing yet another logical fallacy ( ad Hominem).

Perhaps con can learn to put aside con"s entitled attitude and become less anti social in arguments.

There were 3 points made in round #1:

#1 "If a god from any religion cannot show up in person "
#2 "and let you know what is expected of it"
#3 "That would not be your fault for you not understanding what it's laws rules and regulations are. "

PRO refuted #1 as a materialistic prejudice, And showed many examples of unseen existence. Con did not refute.

PRO refuted #2 by separating societal based ethics from religious based ethics. Again no refutation from con.

PRO refuted #3 by using the concept of natural law. Again no refutation from con.

Thus under the DDO rules this debate does come to and end.

PRO asks that voters weigh the mechanics of the debate and vote accordingly.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mk6520 1 month ago
mk6520
"If the god cannot show up in person for you to believe in it, Then why should you believe in it? "
Im guessing Backy created the debate topic? Because by this logic, We should not believe that the Wind exists because we cannot see it.
Posted by kwagga_la 1 month ago
kwagga_la
@DarthLogicus - You just refuted yourself when you mentioned consciousness. Show me the space consciousness occupies in your brain. It does not occupy any space but yet exist and is real. Consciousness is not understanding, It is awareness. I can see why you would vote con, You are on the same level.
Posted by kwagga_la 1 month ago
kwagga_la
@Theweakeredge - By the way, When did Darwin write the origin of species? Was he there in the beginning when evolution started? You need to check how history works, They did not have "live news" back then. After you checked, Perhaps you can then teach Backwards how it works? Richard Carrier is an atheist, And writes a lot of books about history, Was he there? All the history textbooks used in schools, Colleges, And universities were written long after the actual events happened. Using your logic, No one who writes about history can be trusted and therefore we might as well just abandon history. I suggest you start thinking for yourself, And stop following the furonic atheists who came up with this nonsense in the first place. This idea about "history written after the event" was used by many atheists long before you, And not very logical. Did you notice History. Com is a secular site? When someone here quotes from a Christian site, They usually rant "he"s quoting from a Christian site boohoo. . ", When I quote from a secular site you say there not enough references? If you want to be an atheist, Fine with me, But try to be a honest atheist.
Posted by kwagga_la 1 month ago
kwagga_la
@Theweakeredge - Yes the history of Josephus was written after Christ died, But so is just about every other history. The newspaper you read today contains yesterday"s news, You are aware of this right? Josephus and Tacitus had access to Roman records, So they did not have to be there. The same can be said for Pliny. There were also eyewitnesses still alive 60 years after Christ died. This fact is mentioned in the writings of the Church Fathers which most Atheists ignore. But you knew this right, Having done this years ago? Although I quote two websites, It contains links to the different sources they refer to. Did you miss the links? How many websites am I supposed to quote from?
Posted by kwagga_la 1 month ago
kwagga_la
@Theweakeredge - I have copies of the actual books but for easy reference, And if someone wants to read more, I copy from the internet. Have you heard about the LOEB library? Josephus mentions Christ twice. Josephus is free to refer to whoever he wants as many times as he wants. The fact is, He refers to Christ who did miracles and died, Something no high priest could do. The objection to Josephus is that some say Christians altered the text to show Christ in a positive manner. There is NO evidence for this. It"s just some lunatic idea someone came up with. No date can be given when the so called alteration happened, No evidence is recorded that it happened etc. There is also no other copy, I know of, That states otherwise. Atheists pride themselves on always demanding evidence and following the evidence, But for convenience sake, They tend to ignore the facts when it suites them. In this case, I would think atheists would ignore the allegations due to lack of evidence, Being good moral people and all. I"m also not sure why you bothered to reply, I don"t see how you destroyed anything.
Posted by DarthLogicus 1 month ago
DarthLogicus
also, Pro has not proved that a god can create or destroy things and so on therefore cannot logically define a god. As pro does not know unless pro asks the perceived god and by some small chance the being pro is seeing is a god then the god can explain its limitations if pro can understand "gods great logic" instead of reading from an nonintellectual washy washy primitive man written made fiction book.
Posted by DarthLogicus 1 month ago
DarthLogicus
"Thus point #1 is resolved. There are thing that exist unseen.

Thus point #2 is resolved. Ethical laws exist while the force that originated the laws remains unseen.

Point #3 will be looked at in round #3. "

1. You can define the things that exist which refutes point one.
2. As for point two what you find for point one can put what you think your saying into the context
of all that can exist is this therefore this is this

pro has not defined ethics, Ethics are usually defined as a way of acting that is viewed as "good", Ethics are not laws of the universe they are just word statements, You have not proved ethics are implemented physically so backwardseden is correct you have not provided proof therefore lost the debate. Even if some random law of physics happened cause something that you think is not ethical to occur it is by definition just a law of physics nothing more nothing less, Your definition of ethics just happened to line of with an event that you perceived as good; and I can prove if asked that spacetime is just a fabric that things move on in an infinite amount of ways so there goes your layman baseless opinion con.

1. Something that does not have mass has no substance hence takes up no space, Therefore only things with substance exist
2. Something that does not take up space has nowhere to be, Therefore only things that take up space exist.
physicalism.
3. Consciousness is understanding, Is structure, Is structured, The understanding of different types of things.

no more no less then this

there is objective scale of great and worse which is defined by how one defines benefit.

when I am able to vote will vote con
Posted by backwardseden 1 month ago
backwardseden
Oh um yeah, I did prove that I knew what I was talking about. It's entirely your problem that you didn't think I didn't because guess what? That's not my statement(s). It's what atheists have been saying for thousands of years. What was stated is on various different websites as well as videos and is stated by various different atheists alike. Even better is most have no idea, None, As to what an atheist even is.
Posted by backwardseden 1 month ago
backwardseden
I can explain all the gory details as far as what he/ she needs to do. I mean why bother in saying anything if the opponent already knows how to access the link and or if he/ she wishes to pay any attention to it in which case almost no one does to their automatic loss?
* DDO does not like a few bible verses. Try removing them if you have them and see what happens. DDO will take most though.
* DDO will not take any curse words. Even the word a$$. Spell that word like that or a different way.
* DDO hates lists. "the the the" repeated too many times could spell doom for your arguments/ posts.
* DDO does not like excessively large numbers such as 1 billion. Spell those words out.
There are more but I just cannot think of them at this moment.
Now I"m sure you"ve noticed by now that DDO after every single punctuation mark whether or not you like it, After each one of them, Especially in a link, There is a space and then the next letter is capitalized. I have no reasoning in my little brain as to who thought this one up and decided to implement it, But whoever did, I mean WHY? Yep those links you might use will be broken apart.
* Should you decide to email someone here at DDO, All of that goes away and even thumbnails for youtube links will appear, That is IF someone accepts emailing, In which very precious few do.

Please always tc and haveth thee fun!
Posted by backwardseden 1 month ago
backwardseden
@Theweakeredge - I don't have time to respond, But will late in the morning or afternoon. . .
OK here's a few tricks about DDO if you are interested"
* Compose ALL of your posts and arguments first in google docs. NO EXCEPTIONS, None. This way when finished all you need to do is a mere copy and paste.
* If DDO (debate dot org) does not take your argument(s)/ posts chances are pretty good it's because of your links, Long extended links especially, Remove them, Though it does take youtube links.
* A way for your opponent to view the links you"ve posted are two ways. 1. Tell the opponent to squash all the spaces together and then tell him/ her to shrink all the capital letters next to those spaces that were just taken away (yes it does matter especially for youtube links). 2. Simply use the title of the link. Such as"
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=oh5Cs88SHI4 - The Coronavirus is Bible Prophecy (Completely Unexpected Claim! )
To better illustrate" Simply tell your opponent to copy and paste the title of the link into his/ her search engine (I use either google or yahoo) in this case it would be "The Coronavirus is Bible Prophecy (Completely Unexpected Claim! )" and wah lah it is almost always the very first link. Granted, This is NOT ALWAYS THE CASE especially if it"s generic. If this happens, Numerous links will appear. In other words, Check your titles before you post them! Now with the link here"s what"s happening" First tell the opponent to copy and paste the link into his/ her address bar. Then after each period and the question mark there"s going to be a space. The opponent is required to squash those spaces together. Then the capital "Y" and the capital "C" and the capital "V" are all required to be turned into small letters otherwise the link will---not---work. What I do is I post the link with the title and then leave it as is. Then if the opponent wishes to quibble and or bark about it,
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 month ago
dsjpk5
backwardsedenbigdaveTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con called Pro a "batbrain". That's poor conduct.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.