Instigator / Pro
Points: 8

there is a god

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
Lernaean
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
12,000
Contender / Con
Points: 12
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
con probably believes that we need to create medicine to treat great disease. and to create these medicine would require men of great IQ to make these pills like scientist  pharmacist and doctors to create such drugs. but what if i tell you that the chemicals that you believe created the universe has out performed these men of great iq and have created plant with medical properties that out performed pills that took years to create. how would a bunch of chemicals create medicine that is better than scientist unless those chemicals were god.
 

the fact that plants have medical properties that are better than prescription drugs mean that the creator whether chemicals or god is smarter than the scientist who created the prescription drugs.
 

an example of great medical property in plants is how turmeric roots heal brain damage. can scientist or doctors do that how can chemicals that you believe created the universe do this it would have to be god. i don't care how good are medicine get your drugs created by scientist are  never going to achieve  the healing capacity that turmeric has
 

the healing of the turmeric plant on brain is as effective as 14 prescription drugs combined

saffron flower is proven better for depression then Prozac the antidepressant

herbs v drugs





olive oil  kills cancer cells.


a study was done to see which fruits and vegetables boosted the dna repair system in our body the fruit that ended up boosting our dna repair system were lemons apples cellary broccoli  and others. for an example lemons cut dna mutation errors during the day by half and helps prevent mutations. 
 
 
 
 
plus when you eat spinach and tomato together it creates medicine hat repair DNA. i personally call these food combos because there no name for how god created  a plant properties to complement another plant. 



 cannabis treats schizophrenia

 
 
 
 lemons and green tea when you drink green tea with a lemon in it the green tea antioxidant are 5 times stronger
 



14 herbs that treat depression



bible point


wine was discovered to be bad to pregnant females in the 1970s but gods angle knew during the bc era
"The  angel of the LORD appeared to her and said, “You are barren and  childless, but you are going to become pregnant and give birth to a son.  4 Now see to it that you drink no wine or other fermented drink and  that you do not eat anything unclean"

"Then  the woman went to her husband and told him, “A man of God came to me.  He looked like an angel of God, very awesome. I didn’t ask him where he  came from, and he didn’t tell me his name. 7 But he said to me, ‘You  will become pregnant and have a son. Now then, drink no wine or other  fermented drink and do not eat anything unclean, because the boy will be  a Nazirite of God from the womb "

alright  so when the angel told samson mother that she was going to be pregnant  with him. she said do not drink any wine or strong drinks it was the  1970s when we found out that that drinking while pregnant was bad

article

article says
"It wasn’t until the 1970s that Fetal Alcohol Syndrome was defined and
fully recognized. Work to educate pregnant women of the dangers of
alcohol in pregnancy"

plus i found this article that talks about how we prescribed wine to as medicine to pregnant females in the 50s



alcohol as medicine to treat morning sickness
"Alcohol was often medicine
– whisky for colds or laryngitis, hot brandy punch for cholera,
rum-soaked cherries for a cold. Doctors prescribed champagne as a
treatment for morning sickness. Pregnant women in labor would take a
shot or two of liquor to ease their discomfort. Wine was often
recommended during pregnancy to help pregnant women relax.



satan makes people rich than haunts them
you  know on how almost all the haunted houses are big mansions. why is it  always rich people and not poor people i believe that this is because  these houses once belonged to people who had sold there souls to Satan  in exchange for wealth


god  predicted the the earth floats in space years before anyone had been to  space. back in the day when everyone believed the earth was flat job:28  "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the  earth over nothing.



being depressed can kill you
we all know how being unhappy can kill you early. and how stress can have a huge negative effect on your health
bible got it right first

A cheerful heart is good medicine,
but a crushed spirit dries up the bones.

when you are depressed and not happy  you die faster


in the bible the kid who brother sold to Egypt the female who lied and got him imprisoned wanted him because he ate right back in the day when chemicals were not in food

with Joseph in charge, he did not concern himself with anything except the food he ate. Now Joseph was well-built and handsome,
7 and after a while his master’s wife took notice of Joseph and said, “Come to bed with me!”

in genesis in 39

And I just want to mention this almost 1/3 of the world believes in Jesus. for gods heaven and hell system to work it would have to be most of the planet and this is after you consider that this is a godless time period. And places cut off from the world like north Korea. Christianity is thriving.




It was 1/3 but Christianity has had it really ruff lately

 END TIMES PROPHECY FULFILLMENT

Isaiah said Israel would be reborn in one day



8Who  hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be  made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for  as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.



Israel was declared a nation in 1948 in one day thanks to USA

 



in the end times the bible says there would be an army of 2 hundred million

I heard the size of their army, which was 200 million mounted troops.




china was bragging recently on how they can arm 200 million soldiers because of there large population



this is this guys who pointed out the 200 million china soldiers


the bible talk about the end time trumpets being sounded


this page talks about some of the trumpets being sounded and some of the bad things that happened because of it


strange trumpet noises coming from the sky heard world wide the  news media covered it




and there health benefits to fasting should not starving yourself hurt you not heal you ?????? unless god designed it



if i convince you to come to Christ pls share my points


jesus is lord and lord created everything thus he owns us and we should worship him
Published:
I thank my opponent for his argument. I will start by organizing the opponent’s argument into multiple points, so that I might be able to better respond to it. Following this, I’ll give a general overview of my argumentation strategy, finally moving into specific arguments.

Opponent’s Arguments

1. Plants have medicinal properties, often more effective than man made drugs. We can conclude that God created them and, thus, exists.

2. The Bible indicates that taking alcohol during pregnancy is unhealthy, a medical fact not discovered until recently. This indicates the existence of God.

3. Assorted Points:

a) A man in the Bible was depressed until he started eating healthier, at which point he was no longer depressed.

b) The Bible indicates that the Earth “floats in space”, a fact not discovered until after the Bible was written.

c) Christianity is the most popular religion, therefore it must be true.

4. Unclear Points:

a) Large houses tend to be haunted, implying that rich people sold their souls to the devil.

b) “End Times prophecy fulfillment” and “trumpets being sounded”.

I believe this includes everything Pro talked about. I’ll now detail my argumentation strategy/philosophy, then move into arguments.

Burden of Proof

While I believe that many debates are improved by a shared burden of proof, this is not one of those debates. Existential claims of the form, “The non-abstract thing X exists,” necessarily requires the burden of proof to be on the one making the claim. This is because it is nigh impossible to demonstrate that many objects don’t exist anywhere. That is, it is nearly impossible to prove a negative. As such, any other burden of proof distribution would render any such debate useless.

Thus, the burden of proof rests solely on my opponent. Because of this my arguments will be in the vain of demonstrating my opponent’s claims unsound. If I do show my opponent’s arguments to be flawed, then he has failed to his burden of proof and should lose the debate. If I deem it necessary, I may later present an epistemological argument relating to the idea of believing things without evidence. If I do this, it will be in the second or third round, to give my opponent ample time to respond. 

My Opponent's Sources

The opponent has given us a number of sources. In some cases, I will not provide an opposing source, but will instead argue that the opponent’s source is fundamentally unreliable. Whenever possible, though, I will not discredit my opponent's sources if it is not necessary. 

Responses to Arguments

I will follow the numbering scheme set about above in my overview of the opponent’s arguments. For the sake of brevity, I will shorten the opponent’s claim. Refer to the above for the full claim.

1. Plants as medicine.

The opponent’s entire argument rests upon the idea that plants having significant medicinal properties directly implies that God exists. The implication is that medicinal plants could not have occurred naturally.

Therein is the first problem in my opponent’s argument. What reason do we have to believe that medicinally valuable plants cannot occur naturally? The opponent seems to imply that because smart men created drugs, an even smarter thing must have created plants, since they are often more effective than drugs (according to the opponent). However, this argument would require that plants were created in the first place. That is, the opponent is implicitly using the existence of God to prove the existence of God. This type of circular reasoning is fallacious.

Unless the opponent provides some level of proof that medicinally useful plants could not occur naturally, we have no reason to accept this argument. I will quote the opponent, “[H]ow would a bunch of chemicals create medicine that is better than scientist[s] unless those chemicals were [created by] god.” This is an excellent question, and it is precisely the opponent’s job to answer it.

The opponent goes on to present various evidence that plants are effective medicines. While many of these claims (and their sources) are dubious, it is not currently necessary to refute them since, even if the claims are true, it does not imply the plants were created at all.

2. The Bible’s knowledge of alcohol.

I offer two responses, covering two different angles.

The first is a skeptical response. It is not clear from biblical passage offered that the angel did not want the woman drinking because he thought it bad for her. The angel says, “drink no wine or other fermented drink and do not eat anything unclean, because the boy will be a Nazirite of God…” It is possible that the angel didn’t want the woman to drink/eat uncleanly precisely because the son needed to be “pure”, as God would enjoy this type of agent.

This is a reasonable interpretation of the scenario given that the Bible in many cases places value in purity and cleanliness, as it is associated with holiness. Importantly, I am not claiming this is what the angel meant. Rather, I am showing the opponent’s interpretation is not the only reasonable one and thus does not constitute proof.

My second point is that the opponent’s own evidence [1] reveals that some had suspicions regarding alcohol and pregnancy more than 2,000 years ago. Per the opponent’s evidence, “Aristotle is quoted to have warned against the hazard of drinking during pregnancy, ‘...drunken… women most often bring forth children like unto themselves, morose and languid.’” That is, Aristotle recognized that women who drank heavily often produced sickly children. To be clear, Aristotle was born in 384 BC.

This makes sense, since we know alcohol does have negative effects during pregnancy. Though it was not considered a rigorous, medical fact until recently, it has certainly always been true. Thus, it is reasonable that perceptive people long ago might have noticed that drinking seems to produce unhealthy children.

Then even if the Bible was referring to the negative relationship between alcohol and pregnancy, it does not imply divine knowledge. Instead, it shows that humans are capable of recognizing patterns.

For the opponent to meet his burden of proof here, he needs to show that a) the Bible was almost certainly claiming that alcohol was bad for pregnant women and b) that early humans were incapable of recognizing this, at least informally.

3a. Depression in the Bible.

The opponent claims that depression is a negative condition and that a person in the Bible was depressed. That person, upon eating healthier, began to look and feel healthier.

This seems entirely reasonable, but it doesn’t demonstrate the existence of God. It is known that diet and mental health have a positive association. [2] It is not surprising that someone eating healthier would become more physically fit and less depressed. But how this connects to God is unclear.

The opponent will need to expand this argument in order to meet the minimum necessary burden of proof.

3b. The Bible and the floating earth.

The opponent fails to produce evidence that people of the past did not believe the earth existed in space. Whereas it may be true that people at some point believed the earth flat, this does not imply that they also believed it didn’t exist in space. These two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

The opponent will need to demonstrate that they are mutually exclusive for this argument to carry weight.

3c. Christianity is popular.

The is a standard argumentum ad populum fallacy. [3] Just because many people believe a thing does not make that thing true. Consider that, before the rise of Christianity, Hinduism was the most popular religion. People believed this was the true religion more than any other. If we are to believe that popularity implies truth, then we would be forced to believe that Hinduism was accurate for some time and that God did not exist, until some point in time where suddenly he started existing (precisely when more people believed in Him than any other god.) This clearly does not make sense.

4. Unclear points.

I’ve put these into subpoints, but I’ll address them all here. I’ve labelled these as “unclear” because either it is not obvious how they relate to the claim my opponent is trying to prove or they are so speculative that it is difficult to reasonably consider them.

First, the opponent claims that haunted houses tend to be mansions and that this further means that rich people must have sold their souls to the devil.

We have no reason to believe that any houses are actually haunted. Second, even if they are, it is entirely speculative that this is because the previous owners sold their souls to the devil. It is a guess. Further, if they did sell their souls for wealth, we can’t reasonably conclude that it was the Christian devil. There are numerous mythological beings which would make a similar deal. This argument needs significantly more structure and evidence to be considered.

Next, the opponent talks about an “end times” prophecy and implies that this prophecy will soon be fulfilled.

Again, this is entirely speculative. We should note that the end times have not occurred, nor has any supernatural entity made it clear that it is causing an end times event. The opponent attempts to draw some connections from the Bible to current events, specifically army size and the sound of trumpets.
Neither of these “connections” constitute sufficient proof. Whether or not God exists, it is not unreasonable that an army somewhere would eventually reach the size of 200 million, given our exponentially increasing.

As for the trumpet sounds, these have been unidentified. To claim they are trumpets of God is nothing more than a guess. Further, the opponent's source seems to indicate that these sounds happened some eight years ago. We have still not observed the end times, so the sounds are not even coincident with the prophecy my opponent maintains is true. Significant evidence is required to bolster this claim. 

Conclusion

The opponent offers numerous arguments for the existence of God, but we have demonstrated that each of them does not offer enough evidence for us to believe their claims. I’ve attempted to be specific on the evidence the opponent would need to present in order for the arguments to hold. Until this is provided, at least to some degree, the opponent has not maintained his burden of proof and cannot be given the debate.

Thanks for reading.

My Sources

[1] - https://bit.ly/2Chtzaj
[2] - https://bit.ly/2tg2DFG
[3] - https://bit.ly/2TtPCVU

Round 2
Published:
i think con does not know how much thought it would take to create medicine with medical property. and to say that a bunch of chemicals by chance mixed together and produces something that can heal brain damage and DNA is like saying a bunch of chemicals can drive a car a bunch of chemicals did your math homework.  

lets say after years of study a group of scientist created medicine that is just as effective as the turmeric plant which would never happen but let say it did


there medicine regenerates a damaged brain like tumeric

there medicine stops dna damage for the day like tumeric

helps with arthritis cancer age related diseases and depression

it would take years of thinking by scientist for the creation of drugs. to create something with medical benefits  would requires thought and know how

in creation of this medicine scientist spent years trying to figure out how when you eat the medicine it would need to be able to go up in your brain and patch up your dopamine receptors to help with depression.

alright for the bunch of chemicals that you believe created the universe to be able to create medicine for depression it would need to know what depression is because chemicals can not think and know what  something is because its an inanimate object. so this proves it can think thus is intelligence meaning its intelligent design. i mean come on do you believe  chemicals would be able to know your name no that's silly. a scientist can not create something to treat depression if he does not know what depression is. thus the chemicals would have to be aware and  know what depression is if it were to create a plant with medical property that help with it.


tumeric treats 800 diseases

tumeric
at the laundry list of over 800 diseases that this spice (or its components, e.g. curcumin) has been studied for to prevent and/or treat, the sheer volume of supportive literature is astounding.


800 diseases how would a bunch of chemicals know what a disease is.  let alone 800 and learn how to treat them and lets say for each disease . let say it takes scientist years to treat one disease. how would you make the claim that a bunch of chemicals randomly created medicine that treats 800 diseases. that's like winning the lottery 800 timers.



we have only identified 270 pathways that turmeric uses to heal the brain.


to be able to traverse the broken brain  would take someone with god like intelligence and it would be impossible to happen by chance.

alright the chemicals would have to know what a human is. the chemicals that you believe created the universe would have to be smart and think hay these humans are depressed people i better create medicine for them in the form of this plant.


alright lets say that over millions of years bunch of chemicals formed together and produced a root turmeric that helps with brain damage. how did those chemicals over millions of years learn how to get inside a human brain without harming the human brain get past the blood barrier see the part of the brain that's damaged and slowly regenerate it like a lizard who lost its tale and is growing a new one



you have to be able to think to create something that complements another thing

would you not have to have god like intelligence to create medicine that helps a damaged brain that is as effective as 14 drugs combined. is that not proof of intelligence design. a scientists with great IQ can created a drug that is 14 times less effective that took him years to create

im saying that it can only be created intelligently that's the only possibility for its creation



REBUTTAL

con sayed



This is a reasonable interpretation of the scenario given that the Bible in many cases places value in purity and cleanliness, as it is associated with holiness. Importantly, I am not claiming this is what the angel meant. Rather, I am showing the opponent’s interpretation is not the only reasonable one and thus does not constitute proof.

My second point is that the opponent’s own evidence [1] reveals that some had suspicions regarding alcohol and pregnancy more than 2,000 years ago. Per the opponent’s evidence, “Aristotle is quoted to have warned against the hazard of drinking during pregnancy, ‘...drunken… women most often bring forth children like unto themselves, morose and languid.’” That is, Aristotle recognized that women who drank heavily often produced sickly children. To be clear, Aristotle was born in 384 BC.

This makes sense, since we know alcohol does have negative effects during pregnancy. Though it was not considered a rigorous, medical fact until recently, it has certainly always been true. Thus, it is reasonable that perceptive people long ago might have noticed that drinking seems to produce unhealthy children.

Then even if the Bible was referring to the negative relationship between alcohol and pregnancy, it does not imply divine knowledge. Instead, it shows that humans are capable of recognizing patterns.

For the opponent to meet his burden of proof here, he needs to show that a) the Bible was almost certainly claiming that alcohol was bad for pregnant women and b) that early humans were incapable of recognizing this, at least informally.



if god did not want her to drink Alcohol  because it was unholy. would he not ask her to not drink it at all. and if he did not ask her to drink it because it is unholy then why is this rule only for her and not other pregnant followers of god.



if i said i am not going to debate you. do you believe that this is because you are unholy thus i should not interact with you. or you beat my argument and im being a little bleach


if god said don't drink while being pregnant do you believe it because its can harm the baby or that it is unholy to do so.



con said


3a. Depression in the Bible.

The opponent claims that depression is a negative condition and that a person in the Bible was depressed. That person, upon eating healthier, began to look and feel healthier.

This seems entirely reasonable, but it doesn’t demonstrate the existence of God. It is known that diet and mental health have a positive association. [2] It is not surprising that someone eating healthier would become more physically fit and less depressed. But how this connects to God is unclear.

The opponent will need to expand this argument in order to meet the minimum necessary burden of proof.

what are you talking about i said nothing like that


con said


3b. The Bible and the floating earth.

The opponent fails to produce evidence that people of the past did not believe the earth existed in space. Whereas it may be true that people at some point believed the earth flat, this does not imply that they also believed it didn’t exist in space. These two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

The opponent will need to demonstrate that they are mutually exclusive for this argument to carry weight.


here is all the translations of the quote

He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.

God stretches the northern sky over empty space and hangs the earth on nothing.

He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing.

He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth upon nothing.

"He stretches out the north over empty space And hangs the earth on nothing.

He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

He stretches the northern skies over empty space; he hangs the earth on nothing.

who hung the northern sky and suspended the earth on empty space.

God stretched out the northern sky and hung the earth in empty space.

He stretches the northern skies over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.

Isaiah 40:22 state that the Earth is round





Next, the opponent talks about an “end times” prophecy and implies that this prophecy will soon be fulfilled.

Again, this is entirely speculative. We should note that the end times have not occurred, nor has any supernatural entity made it clear that it is causing an end times event. The opponent attempts to draw some connections from the Bible to current events, specifically army size and the sound of trumpets.
Neither of these “connections” constitute sufficient proof. Whether or not God exists, it is not unreasonable that an army somewhere would eventually reach the size of 200 million, given our exponentially increasing.

As for the trumpet sounds, these have been unidentified. To claim they are trumpets of God is nothing more than a guess. Further, the opponent's source seems to indicate that these sounds happened some eight years ago. We have still not observed the end times, so the sounds are not even coincident with the prophecy my opponent maintains is true. Significant evidence is required to bolster this claim. 


200 million soldier army do you realize how insane that it that is the usa has 300 million something people and 240 is million adults


The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that there are 247,813,910 adults living in the United States. The total population was estimated at 321,418,820 people, with 77.1 percent of those people being over 18.

so if we almost armed every adult in America that how big china army is



england in 2014 has 60 plus million
53.9 million, and the United Kingdom's total population is 64.1 million



for the  bible to say that there would be such an army is insane 200 million. but then for china to brag and say we could arm 200 million people is scary

alright you got me here but what do you think those noises were


con sayed

We have no reason to believe that any houses are actually haunted. Second, even if they are, it is entirely speculative that this is because the previous owners sold their souls to the devil. It is a guess. Further, if they did sell their souls for wealth, we can’t reasonably conclude that it was the Christian devil. There are numerous mythological beings which would make a similar deal. This argument needs significantly more structure and evidence to be considered.


alright can you think of any haunted house that is not a mansion. people who sell there souls to the devil get filthy rich but this also allows the devil to hunt them. can you think of any haunted houses off the top of your head that are not mansions belonging to rich people. as far as i know Satan is the only one who makes people rich and hunts houses. if it was another entity would it not be poor peoples houses and rich people houses. now you got me with proof of haunted houses. but i'm just saying the culture unwitting confirm what the bible says. weather haunted houses for debate. there are thousand claiming real haunted houses weather they are real is up for debate https://duckduckgo.com/?q=real+haunted+houses&t=ffab&atb=v133-4__&ia=web


there are several turmeric regenerate brain study like 50 sites say the same thing so it is true









Published:
I thank my opponent for his prompt response and for following the order of argumentation that was defined in the previous round. This way, I can cover the arguments, and the opponent’s responses, in the same order as previously. I will do that now.

1. Medicinal plants.

To recap, the opponent claims that plants have excellent medicinal properties and that humans, with their great intelligence, struggle to create drugs as effective as said herbs. I argued that, even if we suppose that plants have the degree of medicinal benefits the opponent claims, it does not indicate that the plants were created.

The opponent claims that “a bunch of chemicals by chance mixed together and produces something that can heal … is like saying a bunch of chemicals can drive a car [or] a bunch of chemicals did your math homework.”

The opponent’s underlying claim is that things which we perceive as complex can only be the product of design. The problem with this claim is that the opponent has not proved it, or even presented evidence suggesting it’s true. The opponent’s argue is meant to assume that it’s obvious that complex things are designed. But why?

We have no empirical reason to believe that complexity implies design. It is true that humans do design complex things, but we should not assume this means all complex things are designed. In fact, the majority of “chemicals” we see on a day-to-day basis were not created by man. This means the complex creations of man are only a very small subset of all complex chemicals. We cannot assume that the property of a small subset applies to the entire set.

That is, we cannot assume that because a small portion of complex things are man made means all complex things are man made. To make this assumption would be to make a fallacy of composition. [1]

The rest of the opponent’s response makes the assumption that plants were created. He is basically arguing, “If we assume that plants were created, then clearly they were not created by man, since plants are much more effective than synthetic drugs.” And even if we assume this statement is true, we have not met its basic assumption that plants are created.

The opponent will need to provide evidence, or otherwise a reasonable logical argument, that complex things cannot arise randomly. We see a number of complex things every day which man did not create, and those things seem to be the result of natural processes. Thus, we cannot make the assumption that complexity implies creation without further evidence.

Until that evidence is provided, the burden of proof is not met here.


2. The pregnant woman, alcohol, and the Bible.

Summarizing what came before, the opponent claimed the Bible knew about the dangers of alcohol during pregnancy long before science, implying divine knowledge. I argued that it’s possible the opponent is misinterpreting the point of the story and that people 2,500 years ago knew, at least informally, that alcohol and pregnancy did not always mix.

The opponent ignores the last point, which is perhaps the most compelling of my two points and so it is the point I will focus on. Recall the opponent’s own evidence says that, while it was not objectively proven that alcohol and pregnancy were a harmful combination until recently, that it was known at least as far back as 500 BC that alcohol during pregnancy might be harmful. Aristotle himself noted the connection.

I further noted that this was not unreasonable, given that pregnant women who drink are more likely to produce an unhealthy child and that, if you see enough births this way, you’d be able to see a pattern.

Even the first point, regarding interpretation, is not well countered. In fact, my opponent seems to give an example supporting my argument. He claims that if he were to stop debating me, it might be because he considers me unholy or it might be because I beat his arguments. This line of logic implies that it is difficult to determine someone else’s intentions.

But this precisely supports my point -- we don’t know the intention of the referenced verse. It is possible it’s because the angel has foreknowledge of the risks of alcohol during pregnancy, but it’s also possible that the angel wanted the woman to “be clean” and “pure”, since this is an oft valued trait in the Bible. Unless more specific evidence is presented, we can’t use this verse as evidence of divine knowledge.

Thus, both of my points still stand. The opponent will need to show that a) people did not have some sense that alcohol and pregnancy were related and b) that the particular story was almost certainly referring to the dangers of alcohol and pregnancy.

3a. Depression in the Bible.

I will not do a recap here, because it seems the opponent did not intend to make this argument.

3b. The Bible and the floating earth.

To recap, the opponent claims that the Bible knew the earth floated in space (whereas people believed the earth was flat), and implied that this constituted divine knowledge. I argued that the earth being flat and the earth being in space were not mutually exclusive. That is, it’s possible for a person to believe that the flat earth exists in space. (Not an unreasonable position if you believe the earth is flat, since there aren’t many other places the flat earth could be except space.)

The opponent responds by providing multiple verses which claim the earth was created over empty space. This does not affect the argument, since I never denied that the Bible made this claim. My point was that the opponent has not demonstrated that people of this time believed the earth existed anywhere else besides space.

Thus, such a passage could constitute only human knowledge and nothing divine.

The opponent also refers to Isaiah 40:22 as evidence that people believed the earth was round. Looking at the verse reveals that this is an exaggeration. The verse refers to the “great circle of earth”. Even modern day flat earthers believe the early is “circular”, they just believe that this is a two-dimensional circle, as opposed to a three-dimensional one.

Then this still does not constitute divine knowledge.

4. Miscellaneous.

4a. Prophecy of end times.

The opponent notes that it is astounding that an army of 200 million people could exist, but does not further provide evidence that this is related to the “end times”. He notes that 200 million is nearly the population of the U.S. and is three times the size of the UK. Again, it may be astounding that China intends to amass such a large army, if it is true, but it still does not constitute evidence for the opponent’s point.

The opponent further seems to agree with my point about the trumpets. I won’t speculate as to what actually caused the noises.

In summary, we do not have sufficient reason to believe that a particularly large army is evidence of the end times. Were the end times to begin, this would be a very different discussion.

4b. Haunted Houses

The opponent laments that I ask him to demonstrate that houses can be haunted, but sadly this is his burden. If we cannot establish that houses are haunted, then the rest of his argument cannot even begin to be considered.

The mention of haunted houses is why I placed this argument in the “Unclear” pile in the first place. It’s not a small assumption that houses can actually be haunted, as this directly implies some type of supernatural behavior. Given that we are discussing the existence of a supernatural being, it’s not reasonable to simply “give” my opponent the free assumption that some supernatural things exist. While there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of hauntings, we’ve yet to see anything resembling scientific proof of hauntings. This, given that claims of hauntings have existed for hundreds of years.

Dropped Arguments

The opponent is the one making his case and I am trying to demonstrate that the case is not strong enough to be accepted. Thus, if the opponent wants to drop some arguments, he has the complete right to. In fact, dropping some arguments gives you time to focus on your strongest arguments and is often a good strategy.

I am mentioning these dropped arguments only for bookkeeping purposes, not to imply that the opponent has done something wrong in dropping them.

The “Depression in the Bible” was explicitly dropped, since it seemed I mistook this for an argument. Further, the “Christianity is Popular” argument was dropped.

Summary

The opponent still has not provided us with the evidence needed for us to consider his case strong. Again, I’ve attempted to note specifically where this evidence is lacking, so that the opponent can provide it. I’ll note that evidence can be composed of data (like the sources the opponent is linking) but it can also take the form of logical arguments. Both are acceptable and the opponent can provide either.

Miscellaneous Notes

It seems important to the opponent to note that plants are better than synthetic medicine in most ways. While I personally find many of his sources to be questionable, I am not arguing that it is wrong. My critique does not require that this plant evidence be untrue, as the argument being made is really more of an “Intelligent Design” argument than a “Plants Are Awesome” argument.

I think the opponent’s plant argument is his most compelling. It might be advantageous for him to really focus on this idea of complexity and design. The intelligent design argument has been around for a long time and has the potential to create very rich, interesting debates.

Sources

[1] - https://bit.ly/2IahJAH

Round 3
Published:
con pls think here you have not been understanding my argument to put medical property in plants would take something that can think and has intelligence

alright con can not seem to understand that traversing the brain with 270 pathways to healing  brain damage would take god like intelligence.

but this is what turmeric does. note we have only discovered 270 pathways that turmeric uses to heal brain damage


the smartest men on the planet with IQ above 150 could not even dream to create a drug that does the same thing as this food. so it is silly and stupid to believe a bunch of chemicals which do not have the ability to think to do this. that's the same as saying a hurricane invented turmeric or even an explosion maybe even a flood



questions that con must answer


if it was a bunch of chemicals how did these chemicals create something when consumed are able to traverse the brain via 270 pathways and heal damaged parts. saying chemicals traversed through the brain  and healed brain damage is like saying a bouncy ball   traverse a rat maze. but saying god created the plant that traverse the brain and healed brain damage is like saying a hamster in a hamster ball traverse the rat maze.


what do the chemicals and bouncy ball lack. let me tell you intelligence


when creating turmeric how did the chemicals be aware and know what a brain was.

the chemicals would have to be aware of what a brain is because they created medical property to help the brain

how can


rebuttal




i am claiming that the mitochondria eve female is the first  female and the earth is around the same age as her





the mitochondria eve is the female that everyone  can trace there ancestor to. each time a mom gives birth she leaves record of that mother in the mitochondria eve and the mothers before her.so we can see the records of your mother mother mother mothers all the back to one female and everyone can trace there ancestor to this one female. scientist have tried to dismiss her as the first female and say but we have bones of older humans but these bones have been proven false because they were just a mixture of human bones with monkeys bones.

so my  theory is if we count every female in a persons family tree lets say 20 years per female all the way back until we get to one female that everyone can trace there past to we should be able to get an accurate reading on how old the earth is.


mitochandria eve video




rebuttal

3a. Depression in the Bible.

I will not do a recap here, because it seems the opponent did not intend to make this argument.

you must have mixed to bible points


being depressed can kill you
we all know how being unhappy can kill you early. and how stress can have a huge negative effect on your health
bible got it right first

A cheerful heart is good medicine,
but a crushed spirit dries up the bones.

when you are depressed and not happy  you die faster


its a bunch of guidelines in proverbs no one was depressed and died. proverbs is a bunch of riddles with god like meaning like god would destroy the house of the wicked but protect the house of the right, not an actually bible quote just showing an example


in this case the quote was


A cheerful heart is good medicine,
but a crushed spirit dries up the bones.


you might have mixed it with this quote


brother sold to Egypt ate right

in the bible the kid who brother sold to Egypt the female who lied and got him imprisoned wanted him because he ate right back in the day when chemicals were not in food

with Joseph in charge, he did not concern himself with anything except the food he ate. Now Joseph was well-built and handsome,
7 and after a while his master’s wife took notice of Joseph and said, “Come to bed with me!”

in genesis in 39

con said


4a. Prophecy of end times.

The opponent notes that it is astounding that an army of 200 million people could exist, but does not further provide evidence that this is related to the “end times”. He notes that 200 million is nearly the population of the U.S. and is three times the size of the UK. Again, it may be astounding that China intends to amass such a large army, if it is true, but it still does not constitute evidence for the opponent’s point.

The opponent further seems to agree with my point about the trumpets. I won’t speculate as to what actually caused the noises.

In summary, we do not have sufficient reason to believe that a particularly large army is evidence of the end times. Were the end times to begin, this would be a very different discussion.


 because in the bible a 200 million soldier army  will kill 1/3 of the planet


and china is going around threatening everyone with a 200 million soldier army


I heard the size of their army, which was 200 million mounted troops.


13 The sixth angel sounded his trumpet, and I heard a voice coming from the horns
of the golden altar that is before God.

14 It said to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, “Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates.”

15 And the four angels who had been kept ready for this very hour and day and month and year were released to kill a third of mankind.

The number of the mounted troops was two hundred million. I heard their number.

17 The horses and riders I saw in my vision looked like this: Their breastplates were fiery red, dark blue, and yellow as sulfur. The heads of the horses resembled the heads of lions, and out of their mouths came fire, smoke and sulfur.

18 A third of mankind was killed by the three plagues of fire, smoke and sulfur that came out of their mouths.


alcohol  and pregnancy

we learned that alcohol was bad  in the 1970s before that we gave alcohol to pregnant people for morning sickness. con points out that some people started to suspect that alcohol was bad for you around 500 ac. ac means after Christ. bc means before Christ. Samuel birth happened before Christ. so this angle still knew before anyone else. because Samuel mother was told not to drink while pregnant before Christ birth and people did not learn that alcohol was bad 500 years after Christs birth


con says that we can not know why god said to Samuel mother when she was pregnant not to drink any wine while pregnant.

i say its pretty obvious because wine is dangerous to babies but con says he has to exactly say don't drink wine because it bad for baby.


what if screwed your girlfriend and our girlfriend said that she slept with me and you confront me and i say how do you know that i screwed her she only said i slept with her


con talks about arguments that do not exist


“Christianity is Popular” argument was dropped. i said that the heaven or hell system would not work.


And I just want to mention this almost 1/3 of the world believes in Jesus. for gods heaven and hell system to work it would have to be most of the planet and this is after you consider that this is a godless time period. And places cut off from the world like north Korea. Christianity is thriving.




It was 1/3 but Christianity has had it really ruff lately



con said
4b. Haunted Houses

The opponent laments that I ask him to demonstrate that houses can be haunted, but sadly this is his burden. If we cannot establish that houses are haunted, then the rest of his argument cannot even begin to be considered.

The mention of haunted houses is why I placed this argument in the “Unclear” pile in the first place. It’s not a small assumption that houses can actually be haunted, as this directly implies some type of supernatural behavior. Given that we are discussing the existence of a supernatural being, it’s not reasonable to simply “give” my opponent the free assumption that some supernatural things exist. While there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of hauntings, we’ve yet to see anything resembling scientific proof of hauntings. This, given that claims of hauntings have existed for hundreds of years.


because i said this

satan makes people rich than haunts them
you  know on how almost all the haunted houses are big mansions. why is it  always rich people and not poor people i believe that this is because  these houses once belonged to people who had sold there souls to Satan  in exchange for wealth


there are thousands of site that say they have real hunted house story's.
even if there true and there  evidence for a real haunted house would you believe it i would not.


just google search real haunted house story's and you would be flooded with click bate articles 23 real haunted houses. Halloweens around the corner here is 9 real haunted house story's.


the earth floating in space

3b. The Bible and the floating earth.
your response makes no sense. anyway god said that the earth floated in pace back when people believe the earth was suspended on the back of the turtle.


the flat earth thing makes no sense because that has nothing to do with what is holding up the earth like strings but god knew that it floated.


alright so you admit that it says the earth is circle but you say a flat earth can be circular to that true but it does not say the earth is flat only that it is a circle



Published:
I thank my opponent for his response.

Pro made one new argument, so I will cover that first. Then, I’ll cover the remaining points.

5. Mitochondrial Eve

There is a lot to unpack here. I imagine we could have a whole debate on the implications of this very point. However, for the sake of time I will make one response. If the opponent renders this response moot, we will explore this point fully in R4.

Let us, for the sake of discussion, suppose that there is a way to “count backwards” to the Mitochondrial Eve. This would tell us precisely two things: that our current understanding of evolution is incorrect and an approximate time at which humanity began.

It does not tell us how old the earth is; it is entirely possible that the earth existed before humanity. It does not tell us if the earth was created or if humanity was itself created. The mechanism of evolution being unviable does not imply creation. This assumes that the only two explanations for modern human life are “evolution” and “God”, but we really have no reason to believe this. Technically speaking, there are any number of possibilities.

Thus, the opponent would need to demonstrate (again, if we take Mitochondrial Eve human dating as fact) that this directly implies the existence of God. I remind the opponent and the reader that we are not debating whether evolution exists, the merits of plant-based medicine, or anything like this. We are debating as to whether God exists and, as it stands, this point does not imply the existence of that God.

If we take this point of true, it only proves we are wrong about a scientific theory. It does not offer any alternatives. The opponent needs more evidence here, otherwise he has only demonstrated that science is wrong, not that God exists.

If we take this point as false, then it clearly does not imply the existence of God.

1. Plant based medicine.

I am glad for the opponent’s response, as it now more closely resembles what it has always implicitly been -- an intelligent design argument. The reader is likely familiar with this argument, but I will remind those who don’t.

The Intelligent Design argument (ID) claims that we live in a very complex universe in which certain things seem exceptionally suited to function in a useful capacity. For instance, some plants have the ability to heal human maladies. It argues that this complexity, well-suited to human needs, could not have arisen by random chance. Instead, it must be the product of a mind far more intelligent than humans. This mind must be God.

I offer two responses to this.

Why does it imply the existence of a god?

The opponent recognizes that plant-based medicine often behaves in complex ways. This cannot be doubted. He claims, “what do chemicals lack… intelligence”. We note that this is an assertion. He takes this fact as obvious, as if it is clear to all people, but no additional supporting evidence is given.

I certainly don’t take it as obvious and neither should any scientific thinker -- not without evidence. What argument do we have for the idea that complexity implies design other than “it is obvious”. Unfortunately, an appeal to what seems obvious is not sufficient in the way of proof, especially when it is not obvious to all.

Humans once considered it obvious that disease was the fault of the old gods, some sort of punishment for ill deeds. We now know that disease is nothing more than a biological phenomenon, not some prejudiced and deliberate act. Importantly, this humans who once found this fact so obvious were wrong. Humans finding something obvious does not constitute proof because humans reliably make mistakes.

Thus, the opponent would need to demonstrate that complexity can only happen because of intelligent design. We cannot accept the, “It is obvious,” argument.

If it does imply the existence of a god, why must it be God, of Christianity?

Let’s go a step further and suppose that complexity does indicate intelligent design. We arrive at another problem, even harder to overcome than the last.

If something intelligent did design the universe, Man, and plants, why should we believe it was the Christian God? There are many other gods thought to exist by some, with stories indicating they are equally as capable of such a feat. (It turns out that omnipotence is a trait associated with many gods.)

Further, it’s possible that the universe was created by a shy god who has not revealed itself in any way. Perhaps we were simply an experiment, tossed aside and abandoned? I only speculate to make the point that intelligent design does not imply the existence of a specific god.

Clearly the opponent is arguing for the existence of the Christian God, so he will need to provide additional evidence that, even if intelligent design is the case, that said design can only be the product of the Christian God.

2. Alcohol and pregnancy.

Recall that the opponent references a passage in the Bible which he claims indicates divine knowledge. I made two responses. First, that we cannot conclude that the story indicates knowledge of the link between alcohol and pregnancy. Second, the opponent’s own evidence implies that some people recognized the connection between pregnancy and alcohol some 2,500 years ago.

The opponent’s response to the first point is, “it’s pretty obvious…” Unfortunately, as was covered above, the “it is obvious” is not sufficient. While it is necessary to make some assumptions in debate, this is not one such case. We need more than the opponent’s opinion that it is obvious otherwise we must reject his argument.

Further, he does not address my second point regarding the fact that we have documented evidence (from Aristotle) that people saw, informally, a connection between alcohol and pregnancy. Thus, it’s entirely possible that the authors of the Bible suspected this fact and included it in their story.

3a. Depression in the Bible.

It seems that the opponent (maybe) is making an argument here? If so, it seems to be that the Bible was aware of depression and its associated negative health implications.

If this is so, it does not suggest the existence of God. Depression is not a disease which is difficult to recognize, nor is it unobvious that being depressed is worse than not being depressed. “It is better to be happy than unhappy,” is not divine knowledge. Rather, it is a philosophical assertion with which most people tend to agree.

Further, it should not be surprising to hear that people in Biblical times were aware that a healthy diet was good for you. They may not have been aware of the medical specifics, but it is not a difficult thing to pick up from experience. Similar to people of the time being aware that a knife to the heart is deadly, without knowing the specifics of how the heart functions.

3b. The Bible and the floating earth.

The opponent argued that the Bible asserted the earth existed in space and, because people believed in a flat earth, this must constitute divine knowledge. I responded by claiming that the earth suspending in space could coexist with believing the earth to be flat. The opponent responded with a verse referring to the earth as a “circle”. I noted that even a flat earth could be circular, still not creating a contradiction.

The opponent’s response is unclear. He notes that the shape of the earth has nothing to do with how it is “held up” in space. I agree, but it isn’t clear that this entails divine knowledge.

The opponent’s argument regarding divine knowledge (in both cases) is this: The Bible claims something which is true and which people of the time did not believe. Thus, we can conclude that man would not have written the verse, but instead God.

The opponent noting that a circular or flat earth is unrelated to the fact that earth is in space does not demonstrate that people of the time did not believe earth floated in space. This is my entire point -- the verse in question does not indicate some knowledge which people at the time did not agree with. At least, the opponent has not provided evidence of this. Until he does, he has not effectively demonstrated that we should take the passage as anything more than human knowledge.

4a. Prophecy of end times.

I will not recap the remaining arguments, as I do not think they will be critical to the outcome of this debate.

The opponent repeats himself that the Bible refers to a 200 million man army and that China has indicated the intention to amass a 200 million man army. My point remains that this does not imply that the Bible is somehow true. I can write a religious text for a new god claiming that the sun will continue to rise for 100 years. I will likely be correct, but this will not imply my religious text is true.

While it would be astounding to know there exists a 200 million man army, it is not unexpected. The human population has continued to grow exponentially. The more humans there are, the larger our armies. If we do not wipe ourselves out, we should not be surprised if one day there is a billion man army, or a then billion man army.

4b. Haunted houses and deals with Satan.

The opponent responds by claiming that “thousands of site[s]” have haunted house stories. He then claims that “even if [evidence exists for] a real haunted house, would you believe it? I would not.” The opponent seems to be as skeptical as I am regarding anecdotal evidence.

Anecdotal evidence exists for all manner of things that scientific evidence has not supported. If we considered anecdotal evidence to be valued, then most debates would be pointless, as you can always find something with anecdotal evidence supporting most any theory. We must resign ourselves to only accept scientific evidence. The opponent has not provided this and we cannot believe, then, that haunted houses exist. Then the rest of the argument does not follow.

4c. Christianity is popular.

The opponent remarks that much of the world is Christian, though they have had it rough lately.

This may be true, but I extend my previous arguments. Christianity being popular does not imply it is true; this is fundamentally a logical fallacy. The truth of a thing is not related to the number of people which believe that thing true. (Excepting, perhaps, some self-referential statements, of which this is not. Consider the statement, “Four people believe this statement is true.” Interesting to think about, no?)

Summary

We’ve gone over the opponent’s remarks and they didn’t add much new to the conversation, save for one additional argument. The opponent still has not provided sufficient evidence for us to accept any of his arguments. I look forward to his response.

Round 4
Published:

but first i just want to explain why I'm doing this hell is a terrible place because it is forever and i do not want anyone to go there so i have come here to show how life is created intelligently to anyone who would listen. i don't want anyone dammed in hell



con seems to believe that the case i am making is that plants are complex when in fact I'm saying it would require intelligence 
 
 
 
 
 
 
this is the definition of intelligence 
 
 
The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. 
‘an eminent man of great intelligence’ 
 
 
 
apply knowledge 
 
 
alright god created turmeric we know this because he apply knowledge by making the plant heal a damaged brain and able to use 270 pathways to do this. you would have to have  knowledge of what a brain is and how to heal it before you can apply that knowledge and heal a brain. and you would have to have knowledge on how to navigate the brain in order to apply that knowledge and  travel through  the brain via 270 pathways .



 
 
 
 
 things that can not apply knowledge and things that can. intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skill
 
 
 chemical can not heal a damaged brain because they do not have any knowledge of what a brain is let alone how to fix one so how can they apply that knowledge and heal a damaged brain
 
 
 
 
 
scientist can not heal a damage brain because they don't have the knowledge to fix a damaged brain and if the don't have the knowledge to fix it the can not apply it and fix a damaged  brain
 
 
a flood can not heal a damaged brain because it does not have knowledge of what a brain is or how to fix it therefore they can not heal damaged brain because they can not apply that knowledge 
 
 
 
 
an explosion can not heal a damaged brain because the do not have knowledge of what a brain is or how to fix it therefore they can not apply  knowledge and heal brain because they don't have knowledge 
 
 
 
 
god can heal a damaged brain because he has knowledge of what a brain is and how to fix it. so he could apply that knowledge when creating the turmeric and heal a damaged brain.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
evolution  believes that animals adapted to there environment. but the fact that animals are designed to live in there own environment is proof of intelligent design

lets start with an easy one to understand the night owl and night vision on how it shows intelligence by apply knowledge

in order for the creator to create the owl it would require intelligence. the creator would have to have knowledge that the owl would live at night and it is dark and hard to see so he  applied that knowledge and gave the owl   night vision



foolish evolution people believe that the owl lives at night and since it is hard to see at night over millions of years the owl evolved and gained  night vision so that it can see at night



kangaroo



but the same thing here. the creator must have had knowledge that the kangaroo joey would have trouble following its mom so he applied that knowledge and gave the kangaroo a pouch to hold the joey

clownfish

the clownfish has a immunity to the anemone that it lives in and its prey do not. evolution says that over millions of years the clown fish became immune to the anemone so that it can hide from its prey in there. but this is proof of intelligent design. because the creator would have to have knowledge that the clownfish would have trouble with its predators so god applied that knowledge and made the clownfish immune to the anemone so that it can hide better


there is a few problems with this would not the predators adapt to the stinging anemone and build resistance to it thus being able to hunt the clown fish




bats


the creator must have had knowledge that it is dark during the night and it is hard to see so he applied this knowledge and gave the bat echo location so that it can roam  at night freely without having to strain its eyes and see during the night. it is also black so that it can hide during the night.


cats


cats have scratchy tongues this proves that the creator is intelligent because he must have had knowledge that it would be hard for the cats to lick off all the crud off its fur so that it can have a shiny coat. if its tongue was soft it could not get all the junk out of its furr it is like a brush. so the creator applied this knowledge and gave cats scratchy tongues so that it can groom its self

evolution rant



if evolution were true we would have billions of fossil of animals that had failed to evolve a bunny has always been a bunny. sure there different types of bunny for example the white rabbit is white because it is designed by god to live in the snow. the brown rabbit is designed to live in holes dirt or tree stump. but if you place this brown rabbit in the snow it would not suddenly turn white



rebuttal

drinking while pregnant

angle told a pregnant mother not to drink while pregnant we did not know that drinking while pregnancy was bad up until 1970s before that we gave wine to pregnant people as medicine in the 1950s some people had suspicion that it was bad during 500ac but this was 500 plus years after the angle tolld the pregnet mother not to drink wine.

he insist that god should be more clear next time and that he should give a reason for not drinking while pregnant.


in the book nickled and dimed a book i had to read in English class. theres a little story that the person in this liberal book tells. a female is having great medical trouble but she when to the doctors and they said nothing is wrong. one day god told the woman to go to the doctors but don't ride walk. so she does as he says and does not drive to the hospital but walks she gets there and collapses on the foor. why did god say don't ride walk. same reason why his angle said don't drink while pregnant.



200 million man army

fo the bible to say that there would be a 200 million man army is insanity that probably more people on the earth at that time. but for china to say they can amass an army of that size is amazing. the bible coming true. con says tht if you give enough time to something it would become true. this is not true untrue things will never be true and there are no prophesy's in the bible that are wrong all the prophesies that have been said have come true like the Israel being reborn in one day which happened in 1948. given the amount of prophesies there are in the bible how many of them are wrong.


the heaven or hell system cold not work without lots of people believing in jesus

i said a lot of people must believe in the bible for the heaven or hell system to work. he seems to believe that i am saying that i am saying that christianity is popular therefore it not real. which is not true.



the earth floating in space.


i stated a fact that the bible says that that the bible says the earth floated n space. but con says this does not mean that they don't believe in flat earth. he is right it does not but they never said the earth is flat either so it is irrelevant. the earth floats in space which is 100 percent true. what if questions are not good for debating. what if they believed the earth was flat what if the believed the earth is on a turtle its irrelevant because it never says any of these things.


mitochondria eve

con states that i only proved the age of humans not  the earth. a human being 200000 years old does not mean the earth is 200000 years old. he world be correct if it was not for the fact that everything is created intelligently if everything is created by god then that means that he created the earth for humans live on thus he would have created humans right after creating the earth..


sources for turmeric


Forfeited
Round 5
Published:
another example on how life is created intelligently. it is maddening trying to figure out  how to word things but i think i got it down. but i think con got what i been trying to say for the last couple months and he would be the first one i think so i want to thank him. always had trouble explaining things.



this is the definition of intelligence
The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
‘an eminent man of great intelligence’


me applying knowledge vs the creator of the dog applying knowledge what is the difference. there is none


i have knowledge that it is hot during the summer so i applied this knowledge and took off my jacket to cool off


i have knowledge that it is cold during the winter so i applied this knowledge and wore a jacket to keep warm


the creator has knowledge that it is hot during the summer so he applied this knowledge and made it so the dog shed it fur/winter coat to cool off


the creator must have had knowledge that it is cold during the winter so he applied this knowledge and designed the dog to grow more fur during the winter. aka its winter coat.

only an intelligent being can possess knowledge



something coming from nothing.
the big bang theory believes life came from an explosion from nothing. god says he created life from nothing maybe there is something there idk.


con said


The opponent laments that I ask him to demonstrate that houses can be haunted, but sadly this is his burden. If we cannot establish that houses are haunted, then the rest of his argument cannot even begin to be considered.

The mention of haunted houses is why I placed this argument in the “Unclear” pile in the first place. It’s not a small assumption that houses can actually be haunted, as this directly implies some type of supernatural behavior. Given that we are discussing the existence of a supernatural being, it’s not reasonable to simply “give” my opponent the free assumption that some supernatural things exist. While there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of hauntings, we’ve yet to see anything resembling scientific proof of hauntings. This, given that claims of hauntings have existed for hundreds of years.

no i mean neither of us would believe that haunted houses were real even if we saw real evidence like a demon is possessing your friend or something. floating objects in the haunted house. i know i would still dismiss it i would think i'm sick and if life is created intelligently by a god it means some of these stories are true.


Forfeited
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
thanks. i just resized that i forgot to put my rebuttal in for 4b last round
Instigator
#3
Added:
--> @crossed
LOL 4b actually is a legit argument, I am actually surprised! The rest wasn't funny or impressive but that made me smirk with glee.
#2
Added:
God might exist.
#1
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro gets conduct for having more rounds filled in. Otherwise, it would have been even. Both debaters were perfectly polite. Pro made arguments that were technically true but turned out to ultimately be non sequiturs. Con categorically rebutted Pro's claims using proper skepticism and did not jump off the ledge onto a positive claim, so no BOP was need on Con's part. Both sides did well and Con ultimately had the more defensible position and played the situation properly to it's logical conclusion.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
1.) Medication. Pro claims that the existence of natural medicine proves Gods existence. To support this pro appears to make an argument from incredulity - how else but God? which is not a particularly strong on its face - but he asks a relevant question that, in part, provides at least a weak justification for incredulityz
Con questions how pro can determine that natural healing properties of organisms do not occur naturally. Now: while pro has overall burden of proof - on this point it’s much harder for pro to prove there is no method by which complex healing chemicals cannot arise naturally.
I feel con has some burden of explaining why medicine can originate naturally, or least undermine the incredulity - he doesn’t have to go in depth, but there is some need to rebut.
Con doesn’t do this.
With his forfeits, and pros anti-evolution “argument”, which was unrefuted - I have to conclude that organisms were created
However, whilst con doesn’t provide justification to believe these plants do not need a creator - he does argue that it need not necessarily the Christian God. This salvages this point a little - and means this point alone can’t win the debate for pro.
This point is largely to pro - but doesn’t prove the resolution. Resolution requires one or more additional points.
2.) The Bible said not to drink while pregnant.
Pro sets up an argument that claims we only knew about issues with alcohol and pregnancy in the 1970s - and the bible said not to drink while pregnant.
This doesn’t seem a strong point, but it seems valid on its face.
Con, however points out that there were suspicions up to 384 BC, meaning that it’s. Not necessarily unreasonable for someone to make this claim.
Secondly, con points out it’s not necessarily the case that it meant that alcohol would be harmful - only that it would make the boy unclean.
Both of these are good rebuttals to the point, and pro doesn’t really address them at all other than to assert his position is obvious. This goes to con.
3.) Depression. Pro makes an argument, then seems to ignore the rebuttal.
The charge is much like the alcohol - that the writers bible knew about depression, and this shows the bible is accurate.
As before, con argues that this example could well have been common knowledge at the time - which fits as pro doesn’t show that it is unreasonable for people at the time to have already figured this out.
There seems to be no further rebuttal. So this goes to con.
4.) floating earth
There seems to be no argument as to why the bible being correct on basic points is proof of God - Pro needs to show that the only way the bible would have included this information is by divine revelation.
Con frames up this argument rather well by basically asking pro to justify why this knowledge relies on revelation - thus God.
Pro didn’t do this, so this point goes to con.
5.) revelation.
The end times prophecy seems largely irrelevant to the resolution. I think the world needs to end to determine whether the end times prophecy is accurate.
6.) haunted house. This is tenuous at best - pro mostly relies on anecdotal evidence - so I don’t feel pro provides warrant here.
7.) mitochondrial eve.
Pro argues that mitochondrial eve and the age of the earth are the same. Con argues this doesn’t support the resolution as even if that is true it only refutes our current understanding of origins - but doesn’t necessarily mean that God exists as claimed.
Summary: con wasn’t harmed by the two forfeits - as pro didn’t really address the issue he raised with cons point. Pros arguments were mostly without warrant - and con merely pointed out the reason why.
The exception is the medicinal plants - pro gave reasons to be incredulous - whereas con didn’t feel he needed to argue that these plants could have originated naturally. I don’t agree, while con didn’t need to do a great deal, he needed to do more: however he saved himself by pointing out that any God - not just the Christian God could do this.
As a result, con clearly wins this debate.
Conduct to pro for the forfeited rounds.
Pro again simply asks the incredulous question - how could such chemicals occur naturally, and cure diseases.
Cons rebuttal again, is to point out that pro is manic a hasty generalization, and to point out that pro can’t substantiated complexity requires