The Instigator
Patrykh
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
LostintheEcho1498
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Atheism (pro) vs Theism (con)

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 5 votes the winner is...
Patrykh
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 663 times Debate No: 76378
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (5)

 

Patrykh

Pro

This is a very old question. Is there a God. Let's talk about it today. I am looking for someone who will take the theism side. I will take the atheism side. Each side will then present its case in the following format.

Round 1: Acceptance round
Round 2: Presentation of arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Closing Statement

Rules:
No offensive language.
No rebuttals in round 2 no arguments in round 1.
Max 10,000 characters per round.
If providing statistics, quotes etc please provide reference to where this information comes from.
LostintheEcho1498

Con

I accept your challenge. I am assuming that anything regarding both topics is up for debate, as you simply said Atheism Vs. Theism. I would also just try to make sure we both are on the same page here. I am not supporting Young Earth Creationism. I also strongly believe in Evolution and God's involvement therein. You may use these as arguments, but know I will probably ignore them as I will likely agree. Make no mistake, I am strongly religious, but I do not believe the Earth's creation happened over night. Stopping there, I hope for a good debate :)
Debate Round No. 1
Patrykh

Pro

First of all I would like to thank Lostintheecho for accepting my challenge. I'm sure this is a very interesting topic to talk about and that it's gonna be an interesting debate. Before I'll begin I would like to point out that my intention is not to 100% prove to you that God does not exist but instead to show that the existence of God is implausible and that atheism is more rational.

1)The first argument I would like to talk about is the geographical argument. If you look around the world you see thousands of religions each one with its own God, own scripture, own rituals etc. Your place of birth predetermines your belief. If you're born in Sweden you're most likely gonna be an atheist, if you're born in U.S.A. you're most likely gonna be a Christian, if you're born in Middle East you're most likely gonna be Muslim, if you're born in Israel you're most likely gonna be a Jew. The problem is, is that the indoctrination doesn't mean that your religion is the right one out of those other thousands. Just because everyone in your family believes it doesn't make it true. It only shows that we are more likely to believe what we were brought up to believe, despite the lack of evidence. There are thousands of religions all around the world. This is not the scenario you'd expect if God was real. If God was real and he revealed himself you'd expect there to be a universal religion, instead of thousands of contradictory religions.
Imagine Usain Bolt racing a bunch of 5 year olds. He would stand out from the group. He would be much faster compared to 5 year olds. It is the same case with religion. If there was any one religion that is correct it would stand out from other religions. But this is not the case we see in our everyday life. Muslims disagree with Christianity, Buddhists disagree with Jews, Hindus disagree with Muslims etc. This means that all religions are equal. They're either all right or all wrong. They can't all be right as a lot of them contradict each other. Therefore all religions are false.

2) The second argument I would like to talk about is the God of the gaps argument. Have you ever asked yourself. "What caused the big bang?" "Where does life come from?" "What is consciousness?" Currently science can't answer these questions. Therefore we can assume that God is behind these. However throughout history this was proven inconsistent. "How do birds fly?" "Why does the Sun shine?" "Why do leaves change colour throughout the year?" I don't know any of those things. Therefore God must have did it. This was the reasoning of people at the time of Jesus. There is a gap between science and religion. However every time new scientific discoveries are made there is less and less space for God. Science now understands how birds fly, why the sun shines and why the leaves change colour during the year.
Please take a look at God of the gaps argument used in the following clip by Bill O'Reilly to justify the existence of God.

https://youtu.be...

Bill O'Reilly assumes that the fact that we don't know how the moon got there somehow means that God did it. This already assumes that no physical explanation exists. However history teaches us that there should be a natural explanation for everything. We need to give science more time.

3) Where does God come from. A theist would often tell us that the universe must have a creator. Then what created God. If something can't come from nothing where does God come from. Theists apply these rules to the universe but for some reason want us to believe that God is this special guy who doesn't need to be created, who doesn't need to come from nothing.

4) The forth argument is a short argument which refutes that a timeless spaceless God exists. If God is timeless does he exist? If no time passes for him then is it reasonable to say that he can't exist for 0 seconds?

5) Theists would like you to believe that we were created in his image. Let's test this. Take a look at the human body.

-The ratio between microorganisms and cells inside our bodies is 10:1. If we were created in God's image does that mean that there is bacteria inside God. If not then why put all the harmful bacteria inside us.
-If we are created in the image of God does that mean he has genitals? If yes why does he need them?

-We only have one set of adult teeth.
-We breathe and eat through the same tube. This increases our chances of chocking.
-We have a blind spot inside our eye.
-We have a 120" field of vision. Does an all seeing God only have a 120" field of vision? Does that count as being all seeing?
-Why is a woman's birth canal so small? This increases a woman's chance of dying during birth.
-Our senses become less sharp as we grow older.
-Why are our testicles exposed? Isn't it safer to keep them inside our body.
-Why did God put our genitals so close to our rectums. This is such an unhygienic solution.
-Our wrists are very fragile.

These are some of the flaws in our body. To me this does not look like we were created by an intelligent being in his image. It seems to me that he was created by us in our image.

6)The last reason why we should not believe in God is because there is no scientific evidence to suggest he exists. Furthermore the theistic God violates all the laws of nature. Unlike religion, science is a method of explaining the world through observations and experimentation. Religion is driven by faith and personal feeling. Science is universal no matter where you go. Religion varies from person to person. The only way that I would believe in God is if God was testable, if you could make calculations based on God. Until that happens I will consider God a product of our imagination. Thank you for your attention.
LostintheEcho1498

Con

LostintheEcho1498 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Patrykh

Pro

My opponent has forfeited the last round. I will give him a chance by skipping this round.
LostintheEcho1498

Con

LostintheEcho1498 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Patrykh

Pro

Once again I thank my opponent for accepting my challenge. Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited the previous 2 rounds therefore I cannot make any counterarguments. What I decided to do instead is answer some questions asked by theists. In this round I will try to answer questions from this website:

http://geekychristian.com...

I will try to answer as many as I can.

1. Are you absolutely sure there is no God? If not, then is it not possible that there is a God? And if it is possible that God exists, then can you think of any reason that would keep you from wanting to look at the evidence?

I know there is no God. However don't confuse knowing something with being certain. I am still an open person who would accept any solid evidence. The only reason why science failed to discover God is because God is not testable, not observable and not verifiable. God is the opposite of science.

2. Would you agree that intelligently designed things call for an intelligent designer of them? If so, then would you agree that evidence for intelligent design in the universe would be evidence for a designer of the universe?

We would look for the designer if we had a reason to believe that the universe is designed. However I have no reason to believe that the universe is designed. It might appear to be designed. About 150 years ago people thought that life was designed. Then Charles Darwin came along and he disproved the idea. The question assumes that the universe is designed but doesn't provide any evidence that suggests that the universe is designed. I can't answer the question any further.

3. Would you agree that nothing cannot produce something? If so, then if the universe did not exist but then came to exist, wouldn"t this be evidence of a cause beyond the universe?

Unfortunately I don't agree that nothing can't make something. I will give you an example why I disagree with you.
0=+1-1
I just created something (+1-1) out of nothing (0). This happens in nature too. So called quantum fluctuations happen all the time producing matter and antimatter which quickly cancel each other out. It is possible that our universe began with a quantum fluctuation.

4. Would you agree with me that just because we cannot see something with our eyes"such as our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind"that does not mean it doesn"t exist?

We can't see our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind. However we can detect our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind.

5. Would you also agree that just because we cannot see God with our eyes does not necessarily mean He doesn"t exist?

If you could test God observe God, verify God make calculations and predictions based on God then you would convince me.

6. In the light of the big bang evidence for the origin of the universe, is it more reasonable to believe that no one created something out of nothing or someone created something out of nothing?

This question is the same as question 3 and the answer is gonna be the same.

7. Would you agree that something presently exists? If something presently exists, and something cannot come from nothing, then would you also agree that something must have always existed?

As I said in question 3 something can come from nothing.

8. If it takes an intelligent being to produce an encyclopedia, then would it not also take an intelligent being to produce the equivalent of 1000 sets of an encyclopedia full of information in the first one-celled animal? (Even atheists such as Richard Dawkins acknowledges that "amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000Encyclopaedia Britannicas." Richard Dawkins,"The Blind Watchmaker"(New York: WW. Norton and Co., 1996), 116.)

This question requires prior knowledge in biology. I don't have that knowledge. Sorry that I can't answer this question.

9. If an effect cannot be greater than its cause (since you can"t give what you do not have to give), then does it not make more sense that mind produced matter than that matter produced mind, as atheists say?

I think that it is more likely that matter produced mind rather than mind produced matter that produced mind. In this case I think that our mind has created the mind of God rather than the other way around.

10. Is there anything wrong anywhere? If so, how can we know unless there is a moral law?

We do not need a moral law as there is no objective morality. Everything is a matter of opinion. Is killing wrong in all situations for example? We as a society construct the laws.

11. If every law needs a lawgiver, does it not make sense to say a moral law needs a Moral Lawgiver?

Yes. I agree. However I would disagree who the moral lawgiver is. In my opinion the lawgiver is the society in which we live.

12. Would you agree that if it took intelligence to make a model universe in a science lab, then it took super-intelligence to make the real universe?

I think this is simplifying the issue. We need intelligence to understand how mountains form but mountains don't need intelligence to form. We need an intelligence to how stars form but we know that it is not intelligence that forms them. We need an intelligence to understand our universe but it is not safe to assume that it is driven by intelligence.

13. Would you agree that it takes a cause to make a small glass ball found in the woods? And would you agree that making the ball larger does not eliminate the need for a cause? If so, then doesn"t the biggest ball of all (the whole universe) need a cause?

I think this is a similar question to question 3. Even if everything need a cause it is not safe to conclude what was the cause without any evidence.

14. If there is a cause beyond the whole finite (limited) universe, would not this cause have to be beyond the finite, namely, non-finite or infinite?

Not necessarily.

15. In the light of the anthropic principle (that the universe was fine-tuned for the emergence of life from its very inception), wouldn"t it make sense to say there was an intelligent being who preplanned human life?

The are many issues with the fine tuning argument. Does an all powerful God need to fine tune anything? If he wanted to couldn't he create a life inside a black hole?

Secondly, how do we know that if we changed the constants of our universe that life would not exist in a different form?

Thirdly, wouldn't the multiverse hypothesis explain the fine tuning? We live in a universe that can support life and we don't live in a universe that doesn't support life because it doesn't support life.

Fourthly, is there a chance that our universe would be formed the way it is. Since it formed the way it is then there is a chance.

Last but not least do you really think that the universe is designed for us? Over 99% of it is empty space where the remaining 1% is mostly filled with objects that could easily kill us such as asteroids, black holes or gamma ray bursts. Our own environment is trying to kill us too with volcanoes, tsunamis or earthquakes. This does not sound like fine tuning to me.
LostintheEcho1498

Con

I would like to apologize to my opponent who has continued on in my absence. I ask voters to give all points to Pro and realize the rudeness of my silence. I hope you can forgive, as I have been busy with other things on my mind. Lastly, I give my hat to Pro who did make a argument, even in my absence, and again, I apologize.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
I could have sworn I fixed that...
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
==================================================================
>Reported vote: Chaosism // Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Arguments, Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Concession and forfeit by Con.

[*Reason for removal*] Voted the wrong side. Con was the one who conceded and forfeited so Pro should be given the points.
===========================================================================
Posted by LostintheEcho1498 1 year ago
LostintheEcho1498
How did I get 4 points..?
Posted by Patrykh 1 year ago
Patrykh
It is quite possible. I'm not as aware of other religions as I am of Christianity (mainly because I was brought up in a Christian country). Is Christianity the only religion to say that though? Yahweh, Allah, Christian God, Buddha, Zeus, Thor etc. they all look... human.
Posted by Saberz 1 year ago
Saberz
You seem to be generalizing theism as christianity. "Theists would like you to believe that we were created in his image" .
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by MarsUltor 1 year ago
MarsUltor
PatrykhLostintheEcho1498Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
PatrykhLostintheEcho1498Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession and forfeit by Con.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
PatrykhLostintheEcho1498Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit by Con, dropping all arguments made by Pro, and making none themselves. So arguments and conduct to Pro, also Pro was the only one to use sources.
Vote Placed by AdventurerExplorer 1 year ago
AdventurerExplorer
PatrykhLostintheEcho1498Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con fortified during most of the rounds
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
PatrykhLostintheEcho1498Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.