I must preface the response by admitting it is not the debate I expected to have. Whilst I perhaps should have expected this from such a ridiculous summary section for the debate, I admit I expected a more reality grounded exercise pertaining to the existence of God. However, I shall continue to rebut my opponents points, and hope this debate can remain civil and interesting for both parties.
- Santa is just Satan rearranged
- Both wear red
- Santa last name is claws.
Firstly, I'm not entirely sure what this proves. Three coincidences are not evidence unless proven so.
Plus Christmas is a pagan holiday. So more proof that the pagan gods are just Satan and his crew. Demons masqueraded as Gods in order to muddy the waters with religion. So people would say there are so many religions Why should i believe in yours. Basically Satan created all these religions so people would believe this.
Many things wrong here. Indeed, Christmas was a Pagan holiday, but it was hijacked by early Christians in the Roman Empire in order to encourage converts into the religion. My opponent also has failed to uphold the burden of proof - before making such outlandish claims as the one above, I would expect the basic premise of the debate - Satan exists - to be proven beyond doubt. Con has made no such effort.
Furthermore, Pagan Gods, at least in idea, existed long before Christianity or Judaism, or any modern religion for that matter. Would it not make more sense for this argument to be made in reverse?
And as for the last point, which Con fails to even address properly, you must prove the existence of Satan before coming to such a conclusion.
You know on how almost all the haunted houses are big mansions.
No, I don't 'know,' because ghosts, or other halloween spectacles have never been proven to exists. I will take this opportunity to further emphasis the failure to even attempt to hold the burden of proof of my opponent.
Also, a debate from this website is not a source, especially not one you lost.
Plus the ideology. That it is more absurd to think that life could just happened naturally is more likely to be true. Because it is absurd to think that life just happened out of nowhere. Here is a comment on this God fined tuned the universe video.
I agree. Fortunately, nobody believes that life came out of nowhere. Evolution is a process of fine tuning, for lack of a better term. Essentially, desirable traits are 'Naturally Selected' within a species (consider the famous example of a finch's beak from Charles Darwin's book - Origin of Species - where the traits that will allow a species to survive will remain.
So if i have a single strand of sand and i fill the entire planet with sand. Then i mix my sand with it. The chance of evolution happening is significantly less. If i tried to find that specific piece of sand while blind.
You seem to have misunderstood the analogy - It is the chances of evolution occurring as it did, not at all. Evolution will always happen within any species that will ever exist, as it is simply the passing on of desirable DNA through a species. Any other outcome of evolution would have the same probability.
In short, my opponent has failed to even attempt to hold up his burden of proof. I will refrain from making arguments of my own in this round as I require further clarification on the topic. I hope con can provide this in round 2.
I know. Theistic evolutionists are ignored in these debates.
Christmas is not pagan. Also, theistic evolution, anyone?