God exists

Emotional RhetoricPro makes various claims which are just appeals too emotion such as. .. .. .. . "No one can say that this world is rubbish and not amazing. "" In fact every human being has seen amazement in this world. However some tend to just be blind and not see this wonderful art produced by an all-supreme"" Look at this magnificent system of God. "" creator of this amazing universe. "Emotional rhetoric is not a substitute for a good argument. And often emotional rhetoric is used to hide the fact that their is very little substance to the argument. CA = Counter Argument CA: If we observe everything around us we can see that everything is made so accurate and perfect. Pro presents three facts. I agree to these facts, but what do these facts prove ? that everything is perfect ? of course not. Do these facts prove that humans were made for their environment ? no, why couldn't they have evolved to suit their environment (natural selection) ? Pro didn't prove that humans existing can't be the result of a natural cause, Pro just goes straight to the supernatural for an explanation. I presented just one little fact, a parasite that causes blindness to refute this oh so amazing perfection. " Yes I agree that it is a very bad disease, however these diseases can encourage us to improve in technology and make cures. "Pros argument rested on the foundation of everything being so accurate and perfect, Pro tries to segway into talking about technology, trouble is this doesn't refute this fact. Suffice to say I think this fact rips apart Pros contention here. Remember Pros argument was based on EVERYTHING being PERFECT and ACCURATE, not whether something encourages technology, I think Pro knows their claim is untenable in light of this fact, which is why they had to try and segway into something else. CA: Design needs a Designer and complexity needs a DesignerPro says "Giving the example of the medicine is to show that when a medicine which is so simple next to this universe has a designer, how doesn’t this universe have a designer. As a scholar says “A simple needle cannot be without a designer, a town cannot be without a reeve, how can this miraculous universe be without a creator? ”"We went over this in the previous rounds, needles, pills, paintings, cars can be proven to have a designer, cause we have OBSERVABLE evidence of this. What was the OBSERVABLE evidence again of the universe or earth being designed ? PRO presented NONE. So what is Pros evidence ? a mere question. .. .. .. .. .. "how can this miraculous universe be without a creator? ” Pro has not being able to prove that the earth or the universe needs a creator. Pros argument comes down too, I can't believe their is no creator therefore there must be one. As I referenced before. .. "The idea that aspects of nature are too complex to have happened by chance (or more aptly natural processes if we wish to avoid straw men) is a fallacy of argument from ignorance, or even willful ignorance, in the case where the theist also has to reject what we already know about the facts of Darwinian evolution. It is essentially tantamount to the statement “I can't think how it could have happened, therefore God did it! "Pro didn't argue against the moth example presented. This shows that natural processes can result in something that "appears" to have "design". Pro says "The theory of Darwinism is already nonsence. Sorry, but my great grandfathers are not monkeys"Since when did Darwinism claim that people are monkeys ? or that people evolved from monkeys ? Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. [1]Pro merely says evolution is non sense but had nothing to back this up. CA: Josip Broz Tito Consider this argument. .. .. ..1) Either I will die or I won't2) If I die, everything I have worked for will be for nothing3) Therefore I won't dieNow Consider Pros arguments1) Either God exists or does not exist2) If God does not exist, then tyrants won't be punished3) Therefore God existsor1) Either God exists or does not exist2) If God does not exist, then when I die that will be the end of me3) Therefore God existsAppeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequences"), is an argument that concludes a premise (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a form of logical fallacy [2]Pros arguments are just one big logically fallacy, more specifically the logic fallacy of appeal to consequences. Summary and Conclusion1) Pro claimed that everything is Perfect, they couldn't sustain this in light of the fact of the parasite causing blindness, thus their arguments that were based on this claim are without foundation.2) Pro wasn't able to show observable evidence of the earth or universe being designed3) Pro wasn't able to rule out complexity arising out of non intelligent causes4) Pro wasn't able to refute that natural selection produces results that "seem" to be "designed"5) Pro appeals to ignorance such as asking "how can this miraculous universe be without a creator? ”"6) Pro uses emotional loaded terms such as "miraculous universe"7) Pro commits the logical fallacy of appeal to consequencesAs such Pro has not being able to prove or even mount a good argument that "God exists"I ask the vote go to the Con. I thank Pro setting up the debate. Sources [1] . http://www.pbs.org...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...