The Instigator
Smake
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
derpymans1212
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Can anybody find an error in my argument for a God?

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...
Smake
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 761 times Debate No: 96042
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (2)

 

Smake

Pro

It is self-evident we did not create ourselves thus something else had to that being the creator. The Alpha and Omega the beginning and the ending of the bible can be found in science. What substance has the same, "god like" properties in science? The answer is energy because it can neither be created nor destroyed and only transfer meaning it has always been here and always will be just like God of the bible.

Some argue if there is a God then what created God? It is the same when it comes to energy. If you cannot create or destroy energy then where did it come from? Energy had to have a creator as well setting up the infinite loop that no one can explain just as with the Creator. So, in the end we have the same argument when it comes to the creator and energy or something that repeats itself.
derpymans1212

Con

I disagree who ever you are.
Debate Round No. 1
Smake

Pro

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. How about making a point as what you disagree with and hopefully it won't be about me because it is about the argument. You wasted one round.
derpymans1212

Con

ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
Debate Round No. 2
derpymans1212

Con

I'm sorry about that I disagree because it's wierd how everything is.Like how GODS can make EVERYTHING
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by debate0101 1 year ago
debate0101
@beyondinfinity, great point.

"Both conclusions result in the same conclusion: Something exists without being caused by anything"

In that case, I would lean towards evolution resulting in multiple Creators (not one Creator called "God" who claims total monopoly and has insecureities thereby requiring his creations to worship him if they want to earn a reward to salvation.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
You can have a universe for free..The energy in the univers ads up to 0.0
https://www.youtube.com...
Posted by beyondinfinity 1 year ago
beyondinfinity
Atheism: the nature exists since it's nature. It exists by itself.
Theism: the nature exist because God created it.
Atheism: but then what created God?
Theism: nothing. God exists since it's God. God exists by itself.
Atheism: but isn't that the same thing I said about nature?!
You see, the idea of God is unecessary. It doesn't sastify the question. No matter how far you go, you always end up with the conclusion that somethinf just exist without being caused by anything.
Posted by debate0101 1 year ago
debate0101
@smake, I would agree that our DNA was designed but I would disagree to use the term "god". Because "god" is a religious entity generally associated with having emotion, requiring glorification, and assumes we all share the same concept of only one "god". The god-of-the-bible does not exist in reality. You should have used the term "creator(s)" for energy can create but does not imply an entity with emotions requiring glorification, or existence of singularity.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
All the thousands of gods we ever created/invented have been proven unnescessary. Gods were, and still are "the gods of gaps". Our own filling..

https://www.youtube.com...
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
How is it self-evident that we did not create ourselves? Only by proving time travel is impossible can you make such a claim.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
"this alleged entity has no place in any scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations, cannot be used to predict any events, does not describe any thing or force that has yet been detected, and there are no models of the universe in which its presence is either required, productive, or useful."
By Austin Cline
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
you have made an argument for energy, matter can not exist without energy

if energy is not created and has no beginning clearly its not created though
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
creation presupposes creator
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
my evidence that there is not
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by skipsaweirdo 1 year ago
skipsaweirdo
Smakederpymans1212Tied
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: This wasn't a debate so this Kenya real vote. Ty
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 1 year ago
ThinkBig
Smakederpymans1212Tied
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: Con trolled entire debate and didn't even argue. Pro wins by default.