Judging Religion - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is a leading online debate website and is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Judging Religion
in Religion

By SwolliwSwolliw 165 Pts
We all know that when it comes down to it, the "Does God Exist" debate is very one-sided in that atheists have abundant evidence, reason and logic in their favour yet, theists have, well, Let's face it, nothing at all to defend their unusual, contrived belief.

But wait! Shouldn't evidence be used to determine the right answer, whichever way it goes?

A court of law, for example, must use and evaluate all the evidence available to determine a case.

It would be unthinkable for a judge to say, "Well, we have all the evidence for the prosecution but the defence doesn't have any yet. When the defence does come up with evidence I shall duly make my finding".

How long are we going to wait for the theist side of the argument to come up with evidence? Another 1700 years?

Or, Can we make a judgement now on the available evidence that we do have?
PlaffelvohfenAlofRI



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • I agree, if we were to take the courtroom analogy, the prosecution would have to be the theist as he is the one making an affirmative claim (God exists). In court language, the theist accuses god of existing, the atheist on the other hand, argues that god is not guilty of existing.

    And as you mentioned, with no empirical evidence whatsoever, all the theist have is speculations...  And no court worthy of the name would find anyone guilty without any shreds of evidence.
    Dee
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • AlofRIAlofRI 829 Pts
    edited July 27
    At this point, 2000 years after the last alleged meeting with a god, and nothing but hearsay evidence provided, I think a learned decision COULD be made. However, the plaintiffs keep demanding extensions, keep promising that more evidence is "forthcoming". The jury has been waiting for eons, it seems, and many are getting tired. I believe that by the end of this century the jury will have rendered a verdict of "insufficient evidence" and the case will be closed forever .... that is, if we haven't ALL, as the saying goes, "met our maker" due to stupidity by that time. 

    Wish I could be around to see it, but, at 83 I don't expect to be around for said verdict. The "stupidity" though, .... I may have time for that.  :cold_sweat:

    Aw JEEZ, Debra, you can be harsh sometimes!
    Plaffelvohfen
  • John_C_87John_C_87 393 Pts
    We all know that when it comes down to it, the "Does God Exist" debate is very one-sided in that atheists have abundant evidence, reason and logic in their favour yet, theists have, well, Let's face it, nothing at all to defend their unusual, contrived belief.

    No, the facts as presented in the debate process have proven Council only has the one chance of suppression of evidence on its side to limit legal representation. GOD is provable as an Axiom making it a priority in legal representation and its exclusion is simply nothing more than malpractice of law.

    It is only the layer who are afraid their witnesses can not testify they can see a difference between that which is not visibly different, GOD the number 89 and GODthe belief of the court of religion. Truing to outsmart constitutional simplicity is not a legal strategy it is political suicide.
    PlaffelvohfenAlofRI
  • John_C_87John_C_87 393 Pts
    But wait! Shouldn't evidence be used to determine the right answer, whichever way it goes?

     Possibly, but that is only when the presentation of an entity of God has not shown up for debate. The fact here is simply an axiom of GOD has shown up for debate and side are being taken. Evidence of GOD has been given is the side that presents nothing as a tangible public presentation. The difference between the two sides is one side has been ordered by the court to present itself and the other exposes itself to the public as only a shared belief.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    Swolliw said:
    We all know that when it comes down to it, the "Does God Exist" debate is very one-sided in that atheists have abundant evidence, reason and logic in their favour yet, theists have, well, Let's face it, nothing at all to defend their unusual, contrived belief.

    But wait! Shouldn't evidence be used to determine the right answer, whichever way it goes?

    A court of law, for example, must use and evaluate all the evidence available to determine a case.

    It would be unthinkable for a judge to say, "Well, we have all the evidence for the prosecution but the defence doesn't have any yet. When the defence does come up with evidence I shall duly make my finding".

    How long are we going to wait for the theist side of the argument to come up with evidence? Another 1700 years?

    Or, Can we make a judgement now on the available evidence that we do have?
    Knowing what is known is not a legitimate cover for making definitive judgments about what is not known.  Is there evidence for the neutrino which scientists invented in 1930 to account for discrepancies in measurements of beta particals emitted by the sun?  Yes, but only circumstantial.  After 70 years of diligent searching researchers did finally devise a way to scientifically observe the invisible particle.  God is like that.  He is invisible.  So are human souls and spirits.  Science cannot prove or disprove God, human souls, animal spirits or other matters of another dimension.

    Quantum Mechanics delves into possibilities which involve the invisible from unseen dimensions, such as souls and spirits.  Here is an interesting article I recently read:

    The physicists have observed that it requires a huge infusion of energy to elevate electrons from a lower level to a higher level.  That’s how spirit matter or dark matter is converted into physical matter – by a huge infusion of energy, or syntropy, or God’s glory, power, and light.  If that energy is released from the physical matter, then it goes back to being spirit matter.  Where does this huge infusion of energy come from?  It comes from the Quantum Realm, the Syntropy Realm, or the Zero-Point Field which is the Light of Christ.  The explanatory power of Syntropy or Quantum Mechanics is through the roof!

    Begging the question and applying circular reasoning – which are logic fallacies – the Materialists, Naturalists, Darwinists, Nihilists, and Atheists define “science” as Materialism and Naturalism.  Materialism, Naturalism, Darwinism, and their derivatives are based upon a wide variety of different logic fallacies.  Materialism and Naturalism are based exclusively on entropy.  There’s NO Syntropy where Materialism, Naturalism, Darwinism, Nihilism, and Atheism are concerned.

    Plaffelvohfen
  • John_C_87John_C_87 393 Pts
    @marke
    Physics is investigating energy, not GOD. Why say God? because there had been a witness o several that identity GOD as an almighty power along with a list of other characteristics.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 165 Pts
    @AlofRI
    "Wish I could be around to see it, but, at 83 I don't expect to be around for said verdict."

    As it stands, there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that in all reason and sensibility, we can put the kibosh on the notion that God exists.
    AlofRI
  • SwolliwSwolliw 165 Pts
    @John_C_87
     ".......the facts as presented in the debate process have proven Council only has the one chance of suppression of evidence"

    The issue, in this case, is that there is not one shred of evidence to prove the existence of God.
    Therefore it is impossible to suppress evidence that does not exist in the first place.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 165 Pts
    @John_C_87
    "The difference between the two sides is one side has been ordered by the court to present itself and the other exposes itself to the public as only a shared belief."

    I think it is worth looking at the fundamental principals of law and burden of proof.
    The claim or prosecution is that over and above the existence of nothing, a God exists.
    The prosecutor or claimant need to present evidence which can then be tested and/or challenged.
    The defendant is not even required to present evidence, nor refute the prosecution in order to win the case.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 165 Pts
    @marke
    "Science cannot prove or disprove God, human souls, animal spirits or other matters of another dimension."

    Why would science be required to disprove something that isn't even proven in the first place?

    Science cannot disprove the existence of fairies or green, winged elephants, or any other absurd existence anyone cares to dream up.

    It would be a world of utter chaos that accepts anything and everything just because it can't be disproven.

    God has never been proven and to try to wriggle out of the argument by inferring that God is beyond the realms of science is totally ridiculous.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 165 Pts
    @marke
    "Quantum Mechanics delves into possibilities which involve the invisible from unseen dimensions, such as souls and spirits.  Here is an interesting article I recently read:"

    And quantum mechanics nor any other means of detection, has detected such a "thing" as God.
    God does not exist.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @John_C_87

    Physics is researching the unknown.  Scientists recognize there are vasts amounts of knowledge which remain untapped by research.  Spiritual matters of science fall into the category of those things which possibly exist but which as yet are unknown.

    I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me. Isaac Newton

    Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/isaac-newton-quotes
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Swolliw

    Quantum mechanics has not found God.  It has not detected God.  But it has opened new doors to the possibility of discovering things about God which were before impossible to research under the constraints of traditional physics.
    PlaffelvohfenHappy_Killbot
  • John_C_87John_C_87 393 Pts
    Swolliw said:
    @John_C_87
     ".......the facts as presented in the debate process have proven Council only has the one chance of suppression of evidence"

    The issue, in this case, is that there is not one shred of evidence to prove the existence of God.
    Therefore it is impossible to suppress evidence that does not exist in the first place.
    Not one, several pieces of evidence. You are only supporting an idea of what God might represent to a group who have been instructed by the sharing of a single belief, and not an instruction of truth that exposes a literal God does exist. It's not impossible to suppress this evidence all that is need is a refusal to gather the most basic of facts as evidence as it contradicts the idea it shouldn't be available to bring together. GOD is a translation on numbers made with letters, a basic straightforward explanation to be proven. You are saying in a basic way algebra is impossible and you are incapable to gather intelligence that it has been used by people for quite some time. 

    A connection hs been brought to the debate table and in order to argue the evidence a discussion of how algebra is not real is in order. Letters have been used as a substitute for numbers and are the focus of the debate argument of the existence of algebra. A nation as strict as China instructs students how to use and understand the basic idea of using letters and numbers, as do much more liberal countries. Okay, to summarize algebra is not evidence that letters can be used in place of numbers in society. Correct?  
  • John_C_87John_C_87 393 Pts
    Proof. you mean something like historic documents that GOD is the letters that can mean the numbers 89.

    .Swolliw said:
    @John_C_87
    "The difference between the two sides is one side has been ordered by the court to present itself and the other exposes itself to the public as only a shared belief."

    I think it is worth looking at the fundamental principals of law and burden of proof.
    The claim or prosecution is that over and above the existence of nothing, a God exists.
    The prosecutor or claimant need to present evidence which can then be tested and/or challenged.
    The defendant is not even required to present evidence, nor refute the prosecution in order to win the case.

  • SwolliwSwolliw 165 Pts
    @John_C_87

    "Okay, to summarize algebra is not evidence that letters can be used in place of numbers in society. Correct?" 

    And to further summarize: G + O + D = 0
    Whatever you care to substitute the letters with, the answer will always be the same.
    AlofRIPlaffelvohfen
  • SwolliwSwolliw 165 Pts
    @marke
    "But it has opened new doors to the possibility of discovering things about God which were before impossible to research under the constraints of tradit@marke

    It has always been the way of creationists to jump on bandwagons in order to keep their futile dreams @marke
    Like every other avenue of science, quantum physics has discovered one thing about God....
    There is no God.
    In one hundred years' time when we are able to transmoglify ourselves anywhere in the universe and AI rules the world, creationists will be still saying the same thing....."Gee, here's another door, we still can't rule out our shared imaginary friend.
    Science has already irrefutably ruled out any possibility that life was created.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Swolliw

    No, science has not proven that non-material invisible objects or entities do not exist.  Also, science has no more proven that life was not created any more than it has proven life had as yet no understood scientificaly plausible origin.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • John_C_87John_C_87 393 Pts
    @Swolliw said
    Whatever you care to substitute the letters with, the answer will always be the same.

    Nope sorry to inform you that is not true it is only you who are attempting to substitute truth for a lie. The sad thing is it is only a crime in a court of law or legal document.

  • John_C_87John_C_87 393 Pts
    What is heartbreaking is you do not see the crime that has been commit by not allowing a simple math principle to live outside religion not that it requires your blessing.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 165 Pts
    @John_C_87
    "Nope sorry to inform you that is not true it is only you who are attempting to substitute truth for a lie. The sad thing is it is only a crime in a court of law or legal document."

    I was merely being flippant out of kindness over such a convoluted, non-sensical piece of reasoning.

    The fact remains: there is not one single shred of evidence of any kind to support the absurd notion that God actually exists.
    To assert the existence of God is incorrect.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @Swolliw
    I feel like I've seen this somewhere before...
    Never mind. Your position is interesting. I ask you this, though: who is in a position to make a judgement? Who am I, or you, to make a decision? And considering that we could never definitively prove it either way, what use would such a judgement be to us mere mortals?
  • John_C_87John_C_87 393 Pts
    @Swolliw

    There is a direction of a definition of god saying it can not be substantiated.
    The second problem is you are making a demand that it is your evidence for the unsubstantiated god that must be presented as a representation by those who have a grievance. Those with grievances have not such a burden as conditions set on a proof.
    Then assertion made by you is that the number 89 exists as a count of value only in your language and because you do not speak a language required to understand the principle of letters and numbers you have a right to degrade a value within the sum of 89.

    The third problem when insisting a religious idea of principle can not exist as God is liberty on religion, refusing to recognize a simple military order of authority based on experience and ratings. unknown to you like G = 400, 0 = 11, D = 500 comes with a set of risks of its own making. The point represented in arguing has been placed at the end of a destination warning those who fly past driven by the momentum the point aimed for has been passed the mark of legitimate grievance.

    To present a point of view missing. Your name is swolliw, My name is known but to GOD and is 1201-100-87 God did not give me that number it is a name and GOD would be the designer of code in which my name is kept private.


Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch