The Instigator
Mikeee
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
shift4101
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

A God Exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
shift4101
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/28/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 841 times Debate No: 18492
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

Mikeee

Pro

Pro will have to prove that there is a god an existence
Con will have to prove there is no a god in existence

Terms:
God: (not of any specific religion) A supreme force over human beings
Exist: to have actual being; be (can include dead, currently alive, or yet to come)

Because there is no "actual" prof for either sides, this debate will be mainly theological less than scientific and evident

Try to stay away from specific gods described by religious organizations (ie: the God of Christianity)

Personal opinions welcome, but will not be recognized as actual "evidence"

First round is to clarify any questions and acceptance only
shift4101

Con

I will accept this. I'm not going to take it all that seriously, seeing as my opponent's resolution is rediculous.

Prove - Demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) http://www.google.com...

Since my opponent has stated he needs to 'prove' there is a god, he must make it impossible for me to arrive at a logical standpoint to where a godless existance is possible. If he fails to do this, he will not have succeeded, and no points should be awarded.

I, however, need to simply dismantle and abolish all claims that my opponent makes. I am not neccessarily required to assert that no god exists, seeing as we do not by default understand that a god exists, or at least no studies have recognized such ability.

Good luck to you, Pro!
Debate Round No. 1
Mikeee

Pro

This is not semantics and it is Con's responsibility to make a valid and good argument in order to receive points. If I do not address one of Con's points in a rebuttal, I (or Con) do not lose by "default". Whoever has the better argument will be given the most points; no BS due to literal definitions or technicality, failure to accept this is ignorance on your part. With that clarified, I will make my first point.

In order to prove existence of a God, one must understand the "god" is and where/what it came from. Where did the idea of god come from? Why are so many people acknowledging something that is, as far as actual evidence goes, is just an idea? If god was in fact a man-made idea, why was it created?
Many historians believe that early civilizations created the idea of "god" to explain the supernatural. With closer inspection, however, they soon realized the idols of their faith, such as rams and bulls, actually refer to constellations, and not pagan symbols. Any ancient civilizations placed great importance on astronomy and observation of the stars; they even dedicated temples and buildings, such as the Great Pyramid of Giza, to astronomical significance. The Maya predicted major events that would happen on earth based on astronomical observation. The question is; why is this significant? What encouraged these ancient civilizations to carefully study the movement of the stars? Not until recently, have people related places outside our Earth, to the home on the gods. Ancient civilizations "worshiped the stars", and actually benefited from it. They believed the stars where the home on the gods, and by carful analysis and study, they could interpret what the gods wanted, and my pleasing them, they were successful (in most cases agriculturally). Most religions believed that worshiping the "god", what or whoever it may be, will lead to personal benefit. In the case of the Maya worshiping the stars, they actually benefited, and I the sense of their religion, they had been successful because they had pleased the gods.

How do you explain worship and result? The only logical explanation is that an outside force, such as a "god", has been pleased and was able to help you.

I will make the rest of my points, along with my rebuttal, next round.
shift4101

Con

For those who did not read what my opponent has stated, he has pretty much just said this:

[P1] When people blame good things on god, that god is proven to exist.
[P2] People have blamed good things on their god(s).
[Conclusion] A god exists.

Now, P1 is flawed here beyond explination. I can blame finding my shoes on a leperachan, but that does not mean that the leperachan exists. Just because something can be an explination, doesn't mean "The only logical explanation is that an outside force, such as a "god", has been pleased and was able to help you." Therefore, PRO still has not provided me with evidence that "The only logical explination" is that a god exists.

He also says this:

[P1] If a peoples have based their religion on real world things (i.e. stars, planets, constillations), then their religion is ture.
[P2] Peoples have based their religion on real world things.
[Conclusion] Their religion is true.

Again, P1 is flawed. If I blame my assumption that a leperachan did give me my shoes on a pair of little green trousers I find in my closet, I might get a little suspicious, but in all reality its probably just my dormmate just messing with me. Therefore, PRO still has not provided me with evidence that "The only logical explination" is that a god exists.

Arguments against religion in general:

EXISTANCE OF MULTIPLE RELIGIONS:

[P1] If multiple religions exist, then either any god(s) does not exist or is not doing a good job reigining over human kind, in which case we should not call him god.
[P2] Multiple religions exist.
[Conclusion] Either any god(s) does not exist or is not doing a good job reigning over human kind, in which case we should not call him god.

THE LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR RELIGION:

[P1] If observations suggest strongly something is true, then it becomes more than just a claim.
[P2] No scientific observations have ever suggested any religion is true.
[Conclusion] Religion cannot be held as anything more than a claim.

GOD MUST BE EITHER EVERYTHING OR NOTHING

[P1] If a god creates and reigns humanity, then there is a reason he created us and wants us to do something for him.
[P2] My opponent is arguing that a god created us and is reigning over us.
[C1] The god has a reason for creating us and expects something of us for his benefit.

[P1] If a god has a reason for creating us and expects something of us for his benefit, then he will want to reward those who live to do his bidding.
[P2] {C1} A god has a reason for creating us and expects something of us for his benefit.
[C2] Therefore, he will want to reward those who live to do his bidding.

[P1] If a god rewards those who live to do his bidding, he will also both/either punish those who do not do his bidding or reward people differently.
[P2] {C2} The god will want to reward those who live to do his bidding.
[C3] Therefore, he will also both/either punish who do not do his bidding or reward people differently.

[P1] If god will both/either punish those who do his bidding or reward people differently, then a god is not omnibenelovent.
[P2] {C3} A god will both/either punish those who do his bidding or reward people differently.
[C4] A god is not omnibenelovent.

[P1] If god is not omnibenelovent, then he created evil.
[P2] {C4} A god is not omnibenelovent.
[C5] A god created evil.

[P1] If a god created evil, because evil is defined in almost all religious texts as "Without god", a god created something that was outside of his realm of capability, and therefore cannot exist or is everything at the same time, in which case life is meaningless.
[P2] {C5} A god created evil.
[C6] A god cannot exist or is everything at the same time.

Like I said before, I'm not going to be taking this very seriously. I wish my opponent luck in his reply, but realistically all I care about is votes, so VOTE CON!
Debate Round No. 2
Mikeee

Pro

Some sort of religion or faith exists in all civilizations and types of people all throughout history, so the best way to prove such an existence is through historical comparison. It is not significant that the Maya or Egyptians studied the stars; it is significant that every civilization did and, for the most part, came up with the same solution in isolation. The video above refers to a cycle (at about 12-13 mins in) that the Greeks, Indians, Babylonians, Egyptians, and many more civilizations discovered. Every civilization and group of people all have in common stories about creation and of better times. With no connection to each other, how it is possible that each of the civilizations came up with the same cycle and the same conclusions. Everyone thinks differently, if you and I were to answer a question, we would both have varied answers, yet everywhere around the world you can find people coming up with the same conclusion. How is this possible and how do you explain it?

Just because some religions have different names for things, doesn't mean they are different. Existence of multiple religions does not dismiss it entirely, or the fact that multiple gods could exist. In Christianity, there is a Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; they all are referred to as God, existing in each other. If you look at all of the religions of the world, however, no matter their beliefs, they all have things in common. Zoroastrianism and almost every other monotheist faith, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, all have the same concept of a main, superior God. This is true in pagan religions as well, even in Greek mythology; Zeus was the chief of the gods.

Another thing that everyone all around the world has in common is the idea of some sort of afterlife. In Egypt, mummification prepared the pharos for the afterlife; even the Neanderthal buried their dead, which demonstrates the belief in a life after death. Religions that involve reincarnation, such as Buddhism and Hinduism have an end, at which you are united with the Great Spirit, Amon. By escaping the cycle of reincarnation, you reach the afterlife.

Most religions believe that once you have died, you will go through some sort of final judgment, and once the final trails or judgments are over, you will find your place of rest for all of eternity. The ancient Chinese belief of the veneration of ancestors is similar to praying to a dead family member or saint in the faiths of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
The idea of a prophet or part of god that has come to earth is evident all around the world; in Buddhism, prince Siddhartha, in Christianity, Jesus, in Islam, Muhammad, along with many other prophets and "gods" of other religions.

Some historians believe that remote cultures, such as the Maya and Eater Islanders, where visited my extraterrestrials, if this where for a fact true, then it would mean that they would be far more advanced than use, and possess technologies that we have not yet mastered, such as space travel. Another form of life superior to humans would fit the category of "god", and would spark curiosity of the people they have visited, and, in turn, the people whom they had visited would worship them, in order to understand them.

Saying that something has been caused because of a god is not as farfetched from reality as Con seems to think. Even today, people have been noticed for doing inhuman, incredible things. If something that is beyond your control or understanding, happens, that does not mean that there is always a reason why it happened. Natural events happen all the time and we have not explanation for them because they have not logical explanation, and break every law of physics and science. Ancient civilization, such as the Maya, based their religion of the study of the stars, and we still do not have the slightest idea of how it occurred or came into existence. Con says that we have no evidence and therefore, should dismiss that possibility of its existence. Everything we know came from no prior knowledge, and we were able to prove it every time and research. Scientific evidence points to the universe expanding at the big bang, but we don't know what caused it and where everything came from, we do not even have enough scientific evidence to prove science. Just because Galileo said gravity exist, doesn't mean it's true. Everything we know is just a theory.
The rest of Con's arguments are that God must be everything or nothing, which he fails to prove.

"Like I said before, I'm not going to be taking this very seriously. I wish my opponent luck in his reply, but realistically all I care about is votes, so VOTE CON!"

If you aren't going to be serious, then why bother, either be serious, or stop wasting everybody's time.
shift4101

Con

As I said before, I'm not taking this seriously because your resolution and rules are rediculous. You have to "prove" a god exists, and I have to "prove" no god exists. This is obviously going to end up with us spinning around in circles.



"It is not significant that the Maya or Egyptians studied the stars; it is significant that every civilization did and, for the most part, came up with the same solution in isolation."

I fail to see my opponents point here. If I were to organize a dodecagon shaped room, separate the twelve sides so they couldn't see eachother but could view the center room, placed a series of numbers in the center, and told each of them to come up with as many conclusions as possible, almost all of their standard conclusions would agree, with the exception of specific answers based on speculation. My oponent has deemed specific answers like this as "not signifigant". But those conclusions are signifigant, for if they don't match you cannot build up those speculations and call for their origins as evidence. Therefore, that whole video (which I did sit through, and trust me, its rubbish.) really hasn't made it any more likely that there is a god, it just simply stated information about the stars and how ancient civilizations knew about it.

"how it is possible that each of the civilizations came up with the same cycle and the same conclusions?"

This is like saying "How can people looking at the same thing come up with the same conclusions? Obviously a god must exist." This is just bad logic. Moving on...

"even the Neanderthal buried their dead, which demonstrates the belief in a life after death."

This demonstrates a lot of different things. You are rushing to one of the possible conclusions. This also shouldn't be counted for real evidence, because there is large dispute if Neanderthals even existed. Everything posted until my next attack doesn't have anything to do with this argument, and is in fact are strawmen.

"Some historians believe ... were visited my extraterrestrials"

I don't believe in Unicorns or the Flying spaghetti monster, but some people do. This does nothing to help us arrive at either of our resolutions.

"Even today, people have been noticed for doing inhuman, incredible things."
"Natural events happen all the time and we have not explanation for them because they have not logical explanation, and break every law of physics and science."

Like...?

"Just because Galileo said gravity exist"

Just thought my lovely voters should read this.

"The rest of Con's arguments are that God must be everything or nothing, which he fails to prove."

First off, you didn't even directly adress my arguments; you just wrote this. And I did prove it, through spitty logic work that can easily be ripped apart by most of the voters that read this. You have failed to defend (or even barely adress) the resolution you are trying to defend.

I MUST URGE YOU, VOTE CON!
Debate Round No. 3
Mikeee

Pro

Rebuttal

Con tries to disprove the point about individual civilizations discovering astronomical significance by saying, its bad logic, and they are looking at the same thing. The fact of the matter is that starts just look like little dots in the sky, so finding that they have significance isn't exactly obvious. Most civilizations did recognize that the sun and moon where significant, but those where in your face and obvious.

"This demonstrates a lot of different things. You are rushing to one of the possible conclusions. This also shouldn't be counted for real evidence, because there is large dispute if Neanderthals even existed. Everything posted until my next attack doesn't have anything to do with this argument, and is in fact are strawmen."

I assume the moon landing was a hoax as well? If they spent the time and energy to bury their dead, what did it mean, if it didn't mean they had some sort of faith?

"Some historians believe ... were visited my extraterrestrials"

It's always a possibility. If some big unworldly thing approached you what would you think it was?
"Just because Galileo said gravity exist"

Yes, Galileo said gravity exists, Newton "discovered" it, but Galileo used it to prove things such as the Earth orbiting the sun.

"The rest of Con's arguments are that God must be everything or nothing, which he fails to prove."

I still do not understand why you dismiss the possibility of multiple gods. Strict monotheism is a very "western" idea.

"Even today, people have been noticed for doing inhuman, incredible things."

"Natural events happen all the time and we have not explanation for them because they have not logical explanation, and break every law of physics and science."

Like recovering from an incurable dieses with no explanation other than "faith".

If a god doesn't exist, then why have people been practicing religious belief for the entire existence of mankind?

Who where people such as Jesus, Muhammad, Prince Siddhartha, and every other "religious" figure?

I have no extended arguments other than these last few questions.
shift4101

Con

The fact of the matter is that starts just look like little dots in the sky, so finding that they have significance isn't exactly obvious.

Now, you see, you now aren't even defending your resolution. You are now arguing that stars, because people worship them, mean a god "is the only logical explination". There are definitly reasons out there why these cultures studied the stars; their ignorance of the world, to rise up in power (explination = authority), or maybe just to get people to continue obeying. In this entire debate you did not make it clear that the existance of a god is the "only logical explination."

I assume the moon landing was a hoax as well?

I can ask my Dad if the moon landing happened, and he would say "probably". There is dispute with the moon landing, yes, but it really doesn't matter in the context of this debate.

If they spent the time and energy to bury their dead, what did it mean, if it didn't mean they had some sort of faith?

Maybe they didn't want the stench around? Or maybe they needed a place to hide bodies. There are other explinations than "god".

It's always a possibility.
why you dismiss the possibility of...

I'm not dismissing any possiblity. I'm just telling you it is not what we are debating. We are debating whether or not a god does exist. Not if he might.

Like recovering from an incurable dieses with no explanation other than "faith".

Actually, I wanted cited works. But this claim is alright, I suppose. People who have faith have a large desire outside of their faith to get better, and attitude is half of medicine, I hear!

If a god doesn't exist, then why have people been practicing religious belief for the entire existence of mankind?

"Their ignorance of the world, to rise up in power (explination = authority), or maybe just to get people to continue obeying." As stated earlier.

Who where people such as Jesus, Muhammad, Prince Siddhartha, and every other "religious" figure?


Their is dispute whether or not any of those people existed. And even if they did exist, they represented all different beliefs. But for the most part, they were just people trying to invoke change on society. They could have had no ties to any god(s) at all. Again, has little to nothing to do with our debate.

CONCLUSION

Seeing as my opponent has not defended the resolution "A god exists.", but rather "A god might exist.", and has also been unable to undermine even one of my poor logician conclusions about any god(s), I must urge a vote to CON.

Also, I'm a christian, lolz.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
"a supreme force over human beings" could be interpreted to mean almost anything. You could probably argue that aspects of naturalism meet that definition.
Posted by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
Since the site does not allow grapheme, his name is Siddhartha Gautama, to clarify.
Posted by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
AndyFang @ Gautama Buddha is not a god he is a Buddha

Siddhārtha Gautama was a prince who renounced his thrown to search for the meaning of life, and a way to end suffering. After studying under various Shramana, he determined none of them held the answer, so he sat down under a tree and began to meditate. Through meditation Siddhārtha Gautama discovered the Middle Way, and became enlightened. By reaching perfect enlightened he became a Buddha.

Also the deva in Buddhism are not gods, they are just a higher reincarnation.
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
Darn I was hoping you were con
Posted by shooterboss 5 years ago
shooterboss
I doubt if this debate will have a clear resolution. Con has a major disadvantage, as one cannot prove something irrational (like God) with rational logic.
Posted by Mikeee 5 years ago
Mikeee
I would say god is unreachable as of now, for all we know what the God described in the bible might be an alien or something, nobody knows for sure.
Posted by AndyFang 5 years ago
AndyFang
Can con argue that god only exists within the immortal world? Because I will argue that a god does exist just not Jesus or Buddah.
Posted by Mikeee 5 years ago
Mikeee
So your saying you might accept if I more clearly define "god"?
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
Okay, can we actually give like characteristics such as: omnipotence, omniscience (judeo-Christian like)
Posted by Mikeee 5 years ago
Mikeee
First round is for acceptance only and to clarify questions (strictly about the terms of the debate)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Kinesis 5 years ago
Kinesis
Mikeeeshift4101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Although neither side appeared to have any good grasp of the God debate, Pro's arguments were so unbelievably weak that I have to give this to Con.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Mikeeeshift4101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro spent the entire debate finding reasons to believe that a God might exist, which was not the resolution. Although Con certainly did not prove that God does not exist, his arguments were much more convincing by showing how fallacious Pros arguments were, such as showing how the fact that people believe in God in no way proves that God exists. Conduct to Pro for Cons rude and aggressive discourse. For a minute there he was starting to sound like Izbo.