The Instigator
sjrrj
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
GoOrDin
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Do you believe in the existence of a god? How do you know there is? (besides "the bible said so")

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...
sjrrj
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/13/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,104 times Debate No: 65093
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (38)
Votes (2)

 

sjrrj

Con

I just want to say right off the bat, I am agnostic, so my view is I don't know. I don't know for sure that there is or isn't a god. I don't believe anyone actually knows. I'm just interested to see your point of view and hear your argument. It needs to be something besides "Well the Bible says god exists so it must be true." I will respect your opinion and your religion, I just want an actual valid argument.

I do not believe in the existence of a god because it is a scientific PROVEN FACT that the earth was created from the Big Bang millions of years ago. It is also a PROVEN FACT that humans did in fact evolve from apes. We were not created by a person in the sky snapping his fingers. We can from years upon years of apes changing into the form we are in today. This is actually a proven fact. Anyone who has anything to say against that is wrong because it has been proven. Here is an article for you to read. It explains it all: http://humanorigins.si.edu...
Even the pope has said that "god" is not a magician with a magic wand. He has said that evolution and the Big Bang did exist. What is your argument to say a god exists?
GoOrDin

Pro

sjrrj, you claim that evolution is fact because a link says so. Yet have you seen the studies? Have you seen the methods or met the people who makes these claims? Your defense of evolution is comparable to simply stating that the Bible is a fact because it simply is so.

But let me say then, that perhaps I have never heard the theories and arguments of evolution, and instead, I am a Druid, a Sage a Priest and a Paladin of God,
and let me convert you from there instead of where we are now, observing the articles of evolutionists.

If one was studying atoms. They cannot remove the electrons. They are always there. So, we can not say what an Atom would do without an electron. We can only guess. But we can also assume, that an atom would do one thing all atoms do no matter how many electrons they have: The atoms would cling to one another.

So, if there was no Light ( light = energy = energy is movement of matter = time {time} ) and atoms where floating around in space slowly collecting, the least dense particles would be accumulating on the outside of the mass, and the densest would gather to the center.

and this is how God starts the first page of the bible. An ocean of least dense atoms, which are all the components of liquid water envelop a foundation of atoms which are not of a watery substance.

Then, at this time, the entire Cosmos, for God is alive in all Things, was focused on the Earth, because it was the perfect place to begin creation, and this world of Atoms which had accumulated Ignited the first spark ~

Now see. The Bible is not what says God is real. Abraham reserved this page of the Bible all on his own. No other man was given credit for this information. He, who came from the East, left a region close to India where all the oldest runes of the world can be found. and if one were to study Sanskrit it says through Krishna Hinduism is a monotheist religion.

I will continue in my next argument. as I have run out of space.
Debate Round No. 1
sjrrj

Con

Troll much? I don't care I'm still going to respond. You say electrons can not be removed from an atom. You are wrong. Yes they can be removed. Let me explain. Ionization energy is the minimum amount of energy required to remove an electron from an atom. Electron shielding descries how many electrons are between the nucleus of an atom and the valence electrons, or the electrons farthest from the nucleus. The more electrons shielding the nucleus, the less hold the nucleus has on the valence electrons. As the hold weakens, the valence electrons can be grabbed by other atoms.
Evolution was a proven fact. I have read those studies, I have read articles. Maybe that doesn't mean much to you but I have done research into the subject. There is so much science to back it up, its just funny when people deny it. And maybe there is a god. I don't know for a fact. Neither do you though. Have you ever met him/her? Have you ever met god? As far as you know, the only person to "meet" god, in a way, was Jesus or Moses or whoever. You have not met god. No one actually has hard, physical proof that a god exists.
GoOrDin

Pro

sjrrj, I did not say electrons cannot be removed from atoms. But atoms cannot be studied without the presence of electrons regardless. In addition, removing the electrons from an atom is so temporary it is redundant tot eh article. An atom can still not be studied without electrons. And in addition, ionization does not remove all electrons from the atom, which is the condition I requested you envision.

if I were to continue,
The Light however was just created from this world for the very first time, as Greek mythology suggests the Earth is the Mother and the Father being the Sky, are the parents of the Sun, which is a model of this Biblical event. When electricity ignited for the first time here on the Planet Earth.

Electricity always clings to things, so when it was ignited, it would not shoot out into open space. It would first cling to the least dense particles of the earths ocean of atoms. Molecularizing all the substance that constitutes water because the path of least resistance is to first go through the least dense matter.

Sky and Liquid water are the same compound. So the second day of creation is thus scientifically accurate. So, as we can see, this map is logical scientifically, before we even put faith in it. The origin of energy, and the molecular state of sky+water being the same.

One can be assured God is real simply by taking a scientific interest in Creation.

But I have met God, sjrrj.

And so I encourage you to think what happens with the energy next now that the outer layers of the earth ( the waters) have been molecularized for the very first time by this ignition of energy which was formed from the Earths atomic mass.

and assuredly from there you will continue to follow this model of Creation and continually bear witness to it's scientific accuracy, until the question becomes whether or not Evolution and Creation can co-exist.

Truly sjrrj, You aught to acknowledge that in Greek mythology only Chaos took part int he creation of the world
Debate Round No. 2
sjrrj

Con

How have you "met" god? In your prayers? Has he spoken to you in your mind? Do you just "feel" his presence? If that is your answer, you have not actually met god. No one has. It is a fictional figure people create to make themselves feel better about certain situations or to give them hope. "God" is not an actual person. it was just something created to give people hope and guidance. Explain how you have "met" god. No one actually has so you can't.
GoOrDin

Pro

I suggest that if you want to know God yourself you consider few things.

First, God is as he is if he is at all, and so do not ask God for something that which he has not already given, he was right to not give it in the first place. Acknowledge int his way, that God was/is/would have been right in all his actions and decisions, so do not rebuke them, but seek the wisdom in them, and assuredly if you acknowledge his decisions were wise you will come across his reasoning. In this, you would be acknowledging the First Commandment, Love thy God, and through honestly loving him and seeking an understanding of Him you would surely understand all of his motives, for you would stop accusing him, and address the problems he had to address himself.

Second, and this should be easy, because it is fulfilled in the first act,
seek an understanding of what is good about all God's laws (instead of actions this time) that you did not see wisdom in prior.

Then since this is the same thing, try to think of the wisdom in comparing modern scientific evidence to the Model of Creation depicted on the firsts page of the Bible, and continue my illustration past the second day where I had ended my elaboration of it.

All this taken into consideration, no other animal on the planet has developed any intellectual capacity equal to man, despite having the same amount of generations to "evolve". Even when man has given assistance and tried to fundamentally forward it . Indicating Creation is logical.

Justly, because men raised without morals find none, and become evil corrupt people. It can be logically concluded morals are not a development of man, but are factual laws given by a higher being.

These are just arguments to forward your acceptance of God if you acknowledge them. I only sound arrogant and rude in the same way, A Man can sound angry at another individual who is yelling at him, while all the while, should that individual turn and acknowledge what the Man says would agree
Debate Round No. 3
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
Read carefully. Ionization means the removal of anywhere between one and all electrons.

For the statement about the big bang, I was just correcting your semantics.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
ionization does not in fact remove all electrons*** do some research.

considering "far enough" back in time. Yes that is how far back we are going.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
"An ionized atom still has electrons..."
- Yes. Unless you ionize all the electrons... Ionization does not mean the removal of one electron. It means the removal of anywhere between one and all electrons.

You mean big bang theory states that there were no electrons far enough back in time. The theory is not that electrons were not always there. There's obviously more to the theory than that statement.

Where did I demonstrate a lack of understanding of science? Yours is still clear.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
An ionized atom still has electrons... so you make yourself sound homeschooled - and of topic.

in addition. the theory of the big bang is that electrons were not always there. In this model of Creation we explain a different plausible origin for them, which constitutes as a cause for their being.

I in no way demonstrated a lack of understanding of science. But you did.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
I mentioned it earlier.

Basically everything you said about atoms, electrons, electricity, and light.

It's so wrong that it I think it would be a waste of time to try an explain it to you, but I'll give you two little examples.

Electricity does not ignite. It can cause things to ignite though.
Atoms can be ionized easily and for long periods of time.

Again, I really question where you learned science. Were you homeschooled or something?
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
That example only supports the model of Creation illustrated by the Bible when coordinating with modern science. * but you must continue the model tot he third day first, before the fourth day, as I have stopped in this debate on the second day.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
Or it*
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
Michael Faraday was right in his assumption that The Moon revolved around earth because of electromagnetic forces. Yet the scientists around him denied this because they were incompetent and could not understand him.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
Please express specifically how Each of my scientific assertions are inaccurate individually.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
because your accusation has no grounds.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by neverBSAD 2 years ago
neverBSAD
sjrrjGoOrDinTied
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 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: Pro lied about the points he said. Pro used fragments and independent clauses. Pro did not use any sources. Pro did not defend his point without the use of the Bible.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
sjrrjGoOrDinTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: pro fulfills the resolution in that he believes in god, but if the debate was about god's existence, I felt like pro failed to sufficiently put enough possibilities for god's existence, especially in his failure to rebut evolution and the Big Bang theory. Although, I feel like con should at least highlight that these theories go against God rather than just skip over them to continue rebutting pro. Also, clearly pro didn't really read the resolution. He cited the Bible multitude of times even though the resolution says "besides the bible". Thus con wins.