The Instigator
Mothman
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
QandA
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Does God Exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Mothman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 751 times Debate No: 46488
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

Mothman

Pro

First Round is just to accept this debate,

Second Round is for opening statements

Third Round is Rebuttals

Fourth Round is for Rebuttals

and Fifth Round is for Conclusion

God Bless
QandA

Con

I wholeheartedly accept. I am taking the con stance to the motion. I look forward to a fun and interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Mothman

Pro

I am glad you accepted my challenge,

First let me define terms

God=intelligent energy field that controls the universe objectively without compassion, that is what my God is

Since this God is not omnibenevolent there is no problem of evil.

How is it intelligent you might ask?

our thoughts are just energy, and this energy field has each unit of energy polarized as positive and negative charges and can contain the information of the entire universe and can think using each energy particle as a synapse

Evidence, ok now that I have laid out the definition I will lay out the evidence

1. Kalam Cosmological Argument: Everything that has a beginning has a Cause, the universe had a beginning therefore it had a Cause.
Something can't come from absolute nothingness, so where did the universe come from?
Atheists try to debunk this argument using Quantum Fluctuations, but Quantum Fluctuations don't come from nothing, they come from something (the Quantum Vacuum) This Quantum Vacuum is a Sea of fluctuating energy, just as my God is, my God is energy and Quantum Fluctuations come from energy so this argument further proves my God, amen

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

2. Transcendental Argument: Logic is a byproduct of God, the laws of logic are immaterial and universal, therefore they must be the byproduct of an immaterial and universal mind, therefore God exists,

Con is going to have to explain how he accounts for the laws of logic without God, is logic material or imaginary? either way it wouldn't be universal and true as it is.

http://www.bellevuechristian.org...

3. Double Slit Experiment : watch video, The particles that make up the atom only exist as particles when we are observing them, therefore Consciousness is creating reality

Con will have to explain how waves become particles when we observe them, how does the nature of an electron change?

4. Quantum Entanglement:: Particles are able to affect and communicate with each other over vast distances instantly, Con will have to explain how this happens,

My theory is that all the particles are one and space and time are an illusion, and that we are all one energy as my argument goes

http://www.youtube.com...

4. Shaolin Monks: Spears and drills won't go through them? How? They say it is because of the Chi Energy and this is God, Qigong has been tested and proves the existence of Chi

5. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad: He made many predictions that came true? How? He predicted the death of Lekhram by the angel of death with bloodshot eyes

that really happened then, How? The angel of death came and killed lekhram and then disappeared, there was a large crowd of people, and they all saw this figure disappear. Con will have to explain who killed Lekhram?

Also Mirza Ghulam Ahmad predicted John Alexander Dowie would die before him a miserable death, and he did, I have seen Dowie's grave, it is insignificant, and he build the city of Zion, yet no one knows him in Zion, this was a miracle, therefore God exists.

http://www.flickr.com...

http://www.alislam.org...

6. Mirza Tahir Ahmad: He was persecuted by Zial Haq who wanted to imprison him, but he escaped to london, because his guards mistook him for Mirza Nasir Ahmad, and Zial Haq died in a mysterious plane crash.

My Parents and family witnessed this event, Con will have to explain why Zia Al Haq's plane blew up?

http://www.alislam.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

7. Nostradamus, he accurately predicted the future also, how so? Con will have explain how psychics and prophets know the future without God?

http://www.smashinglists.com...

These are my arguments, in the rebuttal round Con will have to address all of them, but in this round he will make his opening statement God Willing, so Good luck to you Con and may the best man win, amen
QandA

Con

Thank you for your opening arguments Pro. I have a lot to say about them however I will now give my arguments in this round as agreed.

I would first however like to comment on the fact that neither I nor you or anyone at this time can actually disprove or prove the existence or god for definite. We are just dealing with a case of likelihood for this topic therefore I will use arguments to make the case on why I think a God in existence is very unlikely.

1. Lack of evidence.
Now this may seem like a cheap and unoriginal argument against the existence of a God however I genuinely believe that it is one of the strongest, if not the strongest argument against such an existence. The burden of proof must always lie with the claim maker. In other words extraordinary claims (in this case God) need extraordinary evidence. Believers are the claim makers and to this day, have still not provided sufficient evidence for people like me to believe in such an extraordinary claim that there is a divine ruler above us. Why should I live my life based on faith and faith only without any evidence for the claim that God exists. This is the whole notion of faith vs reason and the truth is that to believe in God requires a lot of faith and absolutely no evidence. Again here we see the likeliness and unlikeliness coming into play. For example I cannot completely deny the existence of Santa Claus or The tooth fairy but because there is no evidence for them then I deduce that their existence is very very unlikely. Following this logic we see that God follows the exact same principle. It is faith without evidence and just like Santa Claus or the tooth fairy I cannot see the likeliness of something existence without any known evidence.

2. The thousands of God's that have existed over the years.
This argument is pretty straightforward. Through the thousands of different cultural and belief systems that have existed over the years thousands of God's have been worshiped and believed in. What makes the modern ideology of God so special against the others? If you believe in God, you have chosen to reject Allah, Buddha, Zeus , Thor and all of the thousands of other gods that people worship or have worshiped. People reject everyone Else's God and people reject their God, which means that people who believe in a God are atheist to 99.99% of all other God's out there. In a nutshell, thousands of God's have existed with man and there are two possibilities.
1. That one exists.
2. That none exist.
Which one do you think is more likely given the thousands of Gods in question here?

3. Lack of interference
Through all the pain and hardship that has existed since the dawn of man (and currently exists) and the mass amount of catastrophic events that has destroyed so many lives, where has God been hiding? If he is said to have ultimate power then why does he let such horrific things happen? And more importantly why does he let it happen when people reach out to him for rescue. Either God is just not nice or he is non-existent as lack of interference is a complete contradiction of religious stories. Take the bible for example. It's amazing how there are so many stories in the bible (which is the alleged word of God might I add) about God's miracles, intervention, guidance etc. and we are talking about the directness of God in these stories here, not just God working through people which is a common argument today. Yet where is all this today? Why did God decide to publicly intervene for a brief time period many years ago and then just seem to vanish? Again it is either that God did in fact only want to intervene for a short period of time and then said this is boring I'm going to stop or that these superstitious stories are just superstitious stories. Which is the likelier of the two? That the laws of physics, time and space are altered for a period of time or that these claims are just stories? Not to mention the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence for them.
Note: I am merely using the bible as an example.

4. The consistent replacement of supernatural explanations of the world with natural ones.
When you look at the history of what we know about the world, you see a noticeable pattern. Natural explanations of things have been replacing supernatural explanations of them. Why the Sun rises and sets. Where thunder and lightning come from. Why people get sick. Why people look like their parents. How the complexity of life came into being, to name but a few. All these things were once explained by religion but as we understood the world better, and learned to observe it more carefully, the explanations based on religion were replaced by ones based on scientific fact.
There is a good quote that "Religion is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance " and this is certainly the case. Over the centuries more and more faith based "explanations" have been discounted and disproven. Given that this is true, what are the chances that any given phenomenon for which we currently don't have a thorough explanation for, such as the origin of the universe will be best explained by the supernatural? Taking this consistent pattern into account, the chances of this are extremely slim.

These are my main arguments why I don't think it is likely that any sort of God exists.

I look forward to the rebuttal rounds.
Debate Round No. 2
Mothman

Pro

Rebuttal:

1. Lack of evidence.
"Now this may seem like a cheap and unoriginal argument against the existence of a God however I genuinely believe that it is one of the strongest, if not the strongest argument against such an existence. The burden of proof must always lie with the claim maker. In other words extraordinary claims (in this case God) need extraordinary evidence. Believers are the claim makers and to this day, have still not provided sufficient evidence for people like me to believe in such an extraordinary claim that there is a divine ruler above us. Why should I live my life based on faith and faith only without any evidence for the claim that God exists. This is the whole notion of faith vs reason and the truth is that to believe in God requires a lot of faith and absolutely no evidence. Again here we see the likeliness and unlikeliness coming into play. For example I cannot completely deny the existence of Santa Claus or The tooth fairy but because there is no evidence for them then I deduce that their existence is very very unlikely. Following this logic we see that God follows the exact same principle. It is faith without evidence and just like Santa Claus or the tooth fairy I cannot see the likeliness of something existence without any known evidence."

I presented at least 7 pieces of evidence for the existence of God and have met the burden of proof, and second of all the burden of proof is not on me, because Con is using logic in all his arguments in doing so he is borrowing from my worldview, as I said logic is a byproduct of God, it reflects God's thinking, No God=no logic

Con has to prove that logic can exist without God and has to account for the laws of logic.

We are not talking about Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, we are talking about the Creator of the universe, call it Santa or whatever I already presented proof that a creator exists, no creator no creation. The burden of proof is on Con to account for the origin of the universe and the laws of logic

The main evidence I produced for God is the origin of the universe and the laws of logic and quantum physics, Con will have to account for them.

2." The thousands of God's that have existed over the years.
This argument is pretty straightforward. Through the thousands of different cultural and belief systems that have existed over the years thousands of God's have been worshiped and believed in. What makes the modern ideology of God so special against the others? If you believe in God, you have chosen to reject Allah, Buddha, Zeus , Thor and all of the thousands of other gods that people worship or have worshiped. People reject everyone Else's God and people reject their God, which means that people who believe in a God are atheist to 99.99% of all other God's out there. In a nutshell, thousands of God's have existed with man and there are two possibilities.
1. That one exists.
2. That none exist.
Which one do you think is more likely given the thousands of Gods in question here?"

Those are just names, There can only be one God, or one supreme being or one absolute being, you cannot have two absolutes. The God that I am talking about is intelligent energy, and I have already laid out the evidence for the existence of this intelligent energy, you can call it whatever, Allah, Buddha, Zeus, whatever, but it is one God, and one energy, and Con will have to answer the evidence I have given for the existence of my Energy God, and will have to disprove it's existence,

again the burden of proof is not on me, because Con is using logic, and his worldview (atheism/materialism) cannot account for the immaterial and absolute laws of logic but mine can, therefore God exists by default, and Con has to disprove it's existence and at the same time account for the laws of logic in his materialistic worldview.

3." Lack of interference
Through all the pain and hardship that has existed since the dawn of man (and currently exists) and the mass amount of catastrophic events that has destroyed so many lives, where has God been hiding? If he is said to have ultimate power then why does he let such horrific things happen? And more importantly why does he let it happen when people reach out to him for rescue. Either God is just not nice or he is non-existent as lack of interference is a complete contradiction of religious stories. Take the bible for example. It's amazing how there are so many stories in the bible (which is the alleged word of God might I add) about God's miracles, intervention, guidance etc. and we are talking about the directness of God in these stories here, not just God working through people which is a common argument today. Yet where is all this today? Why did God decide to publicly intervene for a brief time period many years ago and then just seem to vanish? Again it is either that God did in fact only want to intervene for a short period of time and then said this is boring I'm going to stop or that these superstitious stories are just superstitious stories. Which is the likelier of the two? That the laws of physics, time and space are altered for a period of time or that these claims are just stories? Not to mention the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence for them.
Note: I am merely using the bible as an example."

First of all I don't believe in the Bible nor any so called holy book, and I already made it clear in my opening argument that I don't believe God is omnibenevolent, or even benevolent for that matter, God is an energy field that controls the universe objectively without compassion, so there is no problem of evil for me.

God created us for entertainment, It enjoys watching people suffer. It doesn't intervene in human affairs, because that would just ruin the fun. A perfect world is boring, so God created one with lots of pain and suffering.

Again the debate is whether God/Creator exists not whether it is benevolent and caring, and how does Con come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist just because there is suffering in the world?

My argument is that God is not nice, so the problem of evil is no problem for me because God is evil and created the world just to watch us suffer.

4. "The consistent replacement of supernatural explanations of the world with natural ones.
When you look at the history of what we know about the world, you see a noticeable pattern. Natural explanations of things have been replacing supernatural explanations of them. Why the Sun rises and sets. Where thunder and lightning come from. Why people get sick. Why people look like their parents. How the complexity of life came into being, to name but a few. All these things were once explained by religion but as we understood the world better, and learned to observe it more carefully, the explanations based on religion were replaced by ones based on scientific fact.
There is a good quote that "Religion is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance " and this is certainly the case. Over the centuries more and more faith based "explanations" have been discounted and dis-proven. Given that this is true, what are the chances that any given phenomenon for which we currently don't have a thorough explanation for, such as the origin of the universe will be best explained by the supernatural? Taking this consistent pattern into account, the chances of this are extremely slim."

There are still some things we don't understand and probably will never understand without God, for example as I already laid out, Quantum Entanglement: how do particle instantly affect each other? Double Slit experiment: how do waves become particles only when someone is observing them? Shaolin monks: How come spears and drills won't go through them? These have been tested and verified, we still have no natural explanation for these things, only supernatural ones such as my Energy God is doing all this, we are all expressions of this Energy/Consciousness and space and time are an illusion so that is how Quantum Physics works, and this makes sense of it. I find no naturalistic explanation for shaolin monks and Quantum Physics, and I bet there never will be one,

and we still have anomalies such as UFOs, which are proven to exist; research the Tinley Park case, but have no naturalistic explanations, only supernatural ones,

Also the case with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and Nostradamus, how did they know the future?
And with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and Mirza Tahir Ahmad, who killed Lekram and Zia Al Haq? The angel of death killed Lekram and that has been proven, because there were a lot of witnesses and to this day no one has found the red eyed assassin, and God killed Zia Al Haq and saved Mirza Tahir Ahmad, there is no naturalistic explanation for that
so there probably is a supernatural realm because naturalistic explanations can't account for everything and probably never will, and the laws of logic also defy naturalism/materialism as I keep pointing out

I believe I have refuted all of Con's points, I hope he will touch on all of my points also in this round,

I hope Con will address the Kalam Cosmological Argument, Transcendental Argument, Quantum Physics, Shaolin Monks, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Mirza Tahir Ahmad, and Nostradamus.

and I hope Con understands by now, My God is an intelligent energy field that is not benevolent, and will examine and try to debunk the evidence and proof I have provided for the existence of my Energy God, inshallah ameen
QandA

Con

Thank you for your rebuttal. I will now give mine.
Rebuttal:
I would like to point out that none of the arguments you give actually show evidence for God in anyway.
Definition of evidence: something which shows that something else exists or is true.
Source: (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). Your arguments are in no way proof of the existence of God, they are merely theories and if they were evidence then that would mean everyone would have to believe in God. They are just THEORIES.

1. Kalam Cosmological argument:
How can you know that the universe can be lumped into the category of everything else in the world? We know so little about the universe and to say that it must follow an exact structure is a fallacious argument. It is saying that we don't know for sure how the universe was created so therefore God must be the cause. In other words, the God of the gaps argument, an argument that has completely has no backbone. Science is still working on how the universe was formed and is constantly making great advances on the topic. These advances include the notion that something can indeed be made from nothing.
Example 1.
Due to the weirdness of quantum mechanics, nothing transforms into something all the time. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that a system can never have precisely zero energy and since energy and mass are equivalent, pairs of particles can form spontaneously as long as they annihilate one another very quickly. The less energy such a system has, the longer it can stick around. Thanks to gravity " the only force that always attracts " the net energy balance of the universe may be as close to zero as you can get. This makes its lifespan of almost 14 billion years plausible.
Source: (http://www.newscientist.com...) (Please watch the video on this webpage too).
Example 2:
()
Lawrence Krauss presents a brilliantly plausible case on how something can be made from nothing i.e. the universe.

Taking this logic all into account we come to the conclusion that The Kalam cosmological argument can be rebutted through Science. Now of course even if something can be made from nothing then this does not deduce that the universe was created this way but I think it's a lot more likely than a divine creator, who might I add would surely need a creator themselves. In other words who created the creator? How can this argument be evidence for God? It is a mere God of the gaps theory that can be countered with a by nature more rational scientific explanation.

2. Transcendental Argument:
I have often seen this as the moral argument so I hope you'll allow me to view it that way. Of course morality and logic tie in with each other as it is anyway.
I argue that knowledge/morality/logic comes from experience and not from a god. I will explain:
Morals stem from emotion, which stems from the brain, which has evolved based on experience. For example, you see a kid drowning in a pool. The obviously moral thing to do is try to save the kid but the want to save the kid comes from a powerful emotion of panic, fear, anxiety etc. These have evolved over time. Do you think if a Neanderthal man saw a kid drowning in a river they would feel exactly what we would feel today? No of course not because the brain has evolved. Acting morally or immorally stems from emotions in which a person may feel at a particular time. Of course though in order for morals to develop, such emotions would already have to be a part of humans and as we all know it is a scientific FACT that emotions stem from the brain and such emotions have developed through evolution. In other words, morality/logic goes hand in hand with evolution. This article reiterates this point and furthermore explains why morality/logic/knowledge or the products of morality/logical/knowledge stem from the brain. (http://www.wiringthebrain.com.........)
Also, even if your argument could prove the existence of God, it could not prove that this God is responsible for moral values, ethics, knowledge etc. Therefore the argument is unsound.

3. Double still experiment:
I have watched the video and I must say I have no idea what the hell it is talking about but I don't feel that matters (if you'll pardon the pun). I do not see what this has to do with the existence of God or not and you have failed to explain what this has to do with God. Why must I have to explain that waves become particles when we observe them? I have no idea and I do not see how this argument is at all a case for god's existence.

4. Quantum enlargement:
Again I do not see how this is a valid case for God's existence. I have no idea how particles are able to affect and communicate with each other over vast distances instantly as I am not a scientist but what does this have to do with God? It's as if you are suggesting that you too do not know how particles are able to affect and communicate with each other over vast distances so therefore God exists?. If this is indeed what you are saying then this is a totally fallacious, irrational, illogical and a complete God of the gap's argument with no backbone.

4. Shaolin Monks:
I must say I was quite amused by this argument. With all due respect it is completely laughable that you claim this to be evidence for a God. Just because you sir cannot see a possibility of how this drill did not go through the man's body you claim that it must have been the work of God? But not only this, you claim this to be evidence for God? You think that a divine supernatural power is more likely to be at work here than a mere faulty drill, for example? Even if there is proof of Chi energy (you have shown none) how could this possibly mean that God definitely exists? Again this is a God of the gaps argument with no logical or rational connection.

5. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad:
Again we see the exact same pattern with this argument. You have shown no evidence that this man did indeed make true predictions, no evidence of eyewitness accounts to this alleged murder, no evidence to suggest that there was indeed an angel of death present and again if you could somehow prove all of these claims it would still not in anyway even suggest that God exists. Since when did alleged physic predictions result in a case for the existence of God. I do not see any connection between the two at all. I just do not understand how you are trying to get away with somehow connecting random acts with the existence of God, and then claiming that such acts must be be the work of God because you personally don't see another alternative. I am sorry to say that it is madness to claim this as evidence for God.

I am respectfully not going to rebuke your arguments 6 and 7 as I will just be repeating myself over and over again. Please explain to me if I am missing out on something but I do not see in any way how Zia Al Haq dying in a plane crash and Nostradamus allegedly predicting the future has anything at all do with God, let alone a case for God's existence, or even worse, evidence for God's existence? It is a ridiculous claim I am sorry to say.

I feel my opponent has made a big mistake in claiming that he has solid evidence for the existence of God. I feel I have shown that these claims are not only not evidence at all but that for the most part they make no sense in making a case for God's existence.

I look forward to the next round.
Debate Round No. 3
Mothman

Pro

Rebuttal 2:

Evidence-a : an outward sign : indication
b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2
: one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices
(http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

If someone is lying dead, that is evidence somthing killed him.

If something cannot be explained naturally it is evidence of the supernatural.

"Your arguments are in no way proof of the existence of God, they are merely theories and if they were evidence then that would mean everyone would have to believe in God. They are just THEORIES."

They are evidence for God, they are just being covered up by the Illuminati, but that is a separate debate

1. Kalam Cosmological Argument- Everything that begins to exist has a cause (fact) The universe began to exist (Big Bang another fact) Therefore it has a cause.

"How can you know that the universe can be lumped into the category of everything else in the world?"

because the universe too had a beginning therefore it has a cause, Con cannot escape that fact.

Now Con uses Lawrence Krauss and his Quantum Fluctuations to prove something can come from nothing, I am sorry Con but this is not a proof this is a theory just like you said about my arguments.

I see a huge fallacy here, Con takes Quantum Fluctuations seriously but completely ignore Quantum Entanglement, or the Double slit experiment,

as I pointed out in my opening presentation Virtual Particles don't come from nothing, that is impossible, they come from something (The Quantum Vacuum) which is something and is energy.

My whole argument is that God is energy, and QF proves that, yet Con ignores that.

The proof I have that the energy is intelligent is that it must have a will in order to create a universe, and my other arguments such as the Transcendental argument and Double Slit experiment prove it is a conscious mind.

I must ask Con why I should take his Quantum Fluctuations Seriously and it's implications while he completely ignores Quantum Entanglement and it's implications?

2. Transcendental Argument- Con talks about morals, I am not talking about morality, I already made it clear my God is immoral, my argument was about the laws of logic (The Law of Identity, the law of non contradiction, and the law of excluded middle) These have nothing to do with morality, but they have everything to do with God.

They are universal, absolute, and immaterial, only a universal and absolute mind can account for them.

They are not made of matter, and materialism can't account for them, and they are not concepts inside our mind, because then they would be subjective, and logic would be relative,

Only God can account for the laws of logic, no God, no logic, so God exists by default, and the burden of proof is on Con to account for the laws of logic, which he didn't.

3. Double Slit experiment- Con ignored this argument. I asked how does a wave become a particle when a conscious observer is measuring it? Con did not answer? It is Consciousness that creates the particles and that is what this proven experiment proves over and over again, but Con ignores it.

Consciousness is God, and Consciousness is creating the entire universe, Con takes Quantum Fluctuations seriously and it's implications but why did he ignore this argument?

Fine Con you still have to tell me where the universe came from, because I ignore you quantum fluctuations because you ignored the double slit experiment,

and ps God doesn't have a creator, because it had no beginning, God exists outside the dimensions of space and time, Einstein proved that time and space are dimensions, String Theory proves there are other dimensions, so God can exist in higher dimensions, and not be affected by causality or time.

4. Quantum Entanglement- it does prove my Cosmic Mind's existence, because Quantum Entanglement implies the universe is all one, that is the only logical explanation to how particles can instantly communicate with each other?

Con did not explain how two particles can instantly communicate with each other? This is an anomaly in his worldview.

If two particles are interconnected then we may all be interconnected, because we were created in the big bang, that interconnection is God.

Once again why should I take your Quantum Fluctuations seriously while you ignore my Quantum Entanglement?

4. Shaolin Monks- The Drill was not faulty neither was the spear, Con did not watch my videos I bet. They clearly proved that something supernatural happened. Science cannot explain QiGong, and probably never will. This is an anomaly in Con's worldview.

The Chi explanation is the best explanation, and my God is Chi energy, so this proves my God exist. Either way the supernatural is proved in these videos Con just didn't watch them, there was no faulty drill or spear, just a supernatural phenomenon science can't explain, but my worldview can.

5. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- Con ignores this too, tell me Con who killed Pandit Lekhram? It is proven he died, and it is prove his killer disappeared and had red bloodshot eyes, and there was a lot of eyewitness testimony to support this.

https://www.alislam.org...

read my link Con, please!!!!

do you even know who Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is, and do you even know who Lekhram is? And do you even know who Dr. John Alexander Dowie is?

tell me how did Dr. Dowie's death before Mirza Ghulam Ahmad happen? Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was older and lived in India, yet he predicted the death of the American Dowie who was younger, this prediction came true, how?

And Dowie died a miserable death he could not even speak in front of his audience, his death made headlines as I already proved,

and no one in the town he made called Zion Illinois even knows who Dowie is and his grave is insignificant, I have been there and seen it myself,

so please Con tell me who was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and why did his prophecies come true and who killed Lekhram?

http://www.flickr.com...

and Con ignores Argument 6 and 7, why?

tell me Con why did Zia Al Hag's plane blow up, and who saved Mirza Tahir Ahmad?

http://www.alislam.org...

why did the security quards think they were chasing Mirza Nasir Ahmad? how did Mirza Tahir Ahmad get so lucky? How did he escape Pakistan?

I'll tell you God saved him, now find another more natural answer if you can.

And Con didn't even adress Nostradamus' prophecies?

how did he know about World War 2, Hitler, the Atomic Bomb, and 911?

how Con?

http://www.smashinglists.com...

In short Con ignored all my arguments, Con probably thinks he is debating a Christian or something?

I already made it clear that my God is intelligent energy, and Con has to disprove it's existence, because the Burden of Proof is on him because he cannot account for the laws of logic.

Without God you cannot prove anything, because there would be no laws of logic, no science, no mathematics, there would be absolute nothingness, not a quantum vacuum but absolute nothingness,

so the burden of proof is on Con not me, to account for the laws of logic, and creation without a creator,

please Con do research on my arguments more carefully and watch all my videos, and know that materialistic atheism can't account for all these things, but my worldview can, Alhumdulillah
QandA

Con

Interesting but sincerely problematic rebuttal from Pro. However, Like Pro, I will use this round to defend my arguments.

1. Lack of evidence.
Again I would like to point out that Pro presented absolutely no evidence for the existence of God. Merely just theories. He claims that all of his arguments show evidence for God, including the likes of Nostradamus allegedly predicting the future and a monk allegedly being able to withstand a drill in his body which is not only not evidence for God but it does not even relate to God. I urge the voters to see how much Pro's arguments do not result in evidence for God. I have previously refuted them so I'm not going to repeat myself. I hope you understand Pro that neither I nor you, nor anybody can actually 100% prove or disprove the existence of God. We are dealing with a case of likeliness. I do not see how it likely that after so many years of no solid evidence for God that one is still more likely to exist than not.
You say, "The main evidence I produced for God is the origin of the universe and the laws of logic and quantum physics, Con will have to account for them." You do not know how the universe was formed therefore this cannot possibly be evidence for God. I mentioned logic in my transcendental argument rebuttal. I argue that Logic comes from the emotions in brain which develops through experiences and evolution. However even if this was not the case, it would still not proof that a God is the cause of logic and the laws of Physics. Again this shows no evidence.

2. The thousands of God's that have existed over the years.
We agree that if there is a God, there can only be one. I have repeatedly shown how your arguments for this intelligent energy God of yours do not show any such evidence. They are just theories. I or nobody cannot disprove the existence of this energy God just like you cannot prove it's existence however I can say that it is ridiculous to say that this God must 100% exist simply because there is little other explanations. Again a God of the gaps argument. With this in mind, all the ideologies on different God's over the thousands of years lie on the same platform. The platform that there is just as little evidence for one as the other. Now this results in the likeliness of just one existing among thousands extremely diminished.

3. Lack of interference.
I must apologize I was a little uncertain on what you initially meant on your definition of God however I see that I can still refute your points about this argument. Not only do you claim to know that God is definitely an energy field that controls the universe objectively but you also claim to know this God's agenda. You say "God created us for entertainment, It enjoys watching people suffer. It doesn't intervene in human affairs, because that would just ruin the fun. A perfect world is boring, so God created one with lots of pain and suffering." How can you claim to know what God's agenda is? You have nothing to back up this claim so you have given me no reason to believe that this is true or that such a God's existence is true.

4. The consistent replacement of supernatural explanations of the world with natural ones.
I used this point, much like my other points to try and show that the likelihood of a God existing is slim. You're arguments however have merely been God of the gaps arguments. You acknowledge that there may not be natural explanations YET for things like Quantum Entanglement or (I'll indulge you) Shaolin monks, however:
1. This does not mean that there will never be natural explanations for such occurrences.
2. Even if there was never any natural explanations for such events this still would not in the slightest way prove that any sort of God, let alone an energy God existed. You seem to think that if there is no scientific or natural explanation present then that is automatically not only a case for your God but evidence as well. Of course this is a ridiculous notion.

In my points I showed how the existence of a God seems very unlikely. You merely gave God of the gaps arguments where you claimed that your God must 100% as a result of things such as Nostradamus's alleged ability to predict the future. The two do not even relate to one another. Just because there may not be scientific explanations for some occurrences yet does not mean in any way that these occurrences are therefore the work of a God. By default we had no other choice but to make a case for likeliness on the issue of God's existence as nobody can say for absolute certainty yet. You saying that your arguments were genuine piece of evidence meant that it was impossible for me to try and reason with you. You cannot tell me that e.g. because we don't know how particles affect each other from long distances yet or how electrons nature can change yet that this is absolute evidence for God and that I must disprove how it isn't. It's mere nature proves how it is in no way evidence.

It would have been foolish for me to say that my arguments were actually evidence for a God, they merely show how the existence of God seems very unlikely after a little thought. You did not refute these arguments. You merely claimed that they could not be true because yours were somehow all true.

I look forward to the final rounds.
Debate Round No. 4
Mothman

Pro

1. Lack of evidence- I presented 7 pieces of evidence for the existence of God, but Con has yet to refute a single piece of my evidence. He says my proofs are just theories, but Quantum Entanglement and the Double Slit experiment have been tested over and over again, and there is no natural explanation for them, so we have to take supernatural explanations such as God seriously.

I cannot prove God 100% but I have given some proof which suggests there is a God, and it is more likely there is a God, because no God=no universe and no laws of logic.

"You do not know how the universe was formed therefore this cannot possibly be evidence for God. I mentioned logic in my transcendental argument rebuttal. I argue that Logic comes from the emotions in brain which develops through experiences and evolution. However even if this was not the case, it would still not proof that a God is the cause of logic and the laws of Physics. Again this shows no evidence."

I do know where the universe came from, it logically could have only come from something that always existed such as God.
The universe couldn't have always existed because it had a beginning (Big Bang) and an end (Big Freeze) Therefore it must have a creator that is eternal, this argument is sound, and Con could not refute it. He tried to use Quantum Fluctuations to refute it, but he ignored Quantum Entanglement, and Con did not answer why I should take his quantum fluctuations seriously when he ignores my quantum entanglement?

And Con just admitted that logic or the laws of logic don't exist, by saying they are emotions in the brain that developed through evolution! The Laws of logic (law of identity, law of non contradiction, and law of excluded middle) are absolute and universal.

If evolution created them or they were products of the brain, they would be subjective, and there would be different sets of laws of logic, because they would be relative then.

Only a universal and absolute mind could account for the universal laws of logic. This is a sound argument, yet Con did not refute it.

Con used logic throughout this entire debate, which means he was borrowing from my worldview, because his worldview cannot account for the universal laws of logic, therefore God exists by default and the burden of proof is on Con to account for the laws of logic without God, and he was unable to do so.

2. The thousands of God's that have existed over the years- as I said there is only one God, and all the other gods are just names for the same entity. I didn't just put forward theories, I put forward logical arguments for the existence of God, none of which Con could refute. Con calls this the God of the gaps argument, but what is the problem with that. Con's naturalistic worldview is incomplete, and can barely stand. We don't have any naturalistic explanations for the origin of the universe, Quantum Physics and Shoalin Monks, so we have to take supernatural explanations seriously. And Con never was able to account for the laws of logic, when he is using logic, so Con failed to meet the burden of proof that was on him not me.

There is only One God because there can only be one supreme or one absolute, and God means Supreme Being. Allah, Jehovah, Yahweh, etc. are just names for the supreme being, so this argument of Con isn't even true, because there has only been one God not thousands, and there is only one Creator, and Con has yet to tell me about the origin of the universe, and I won't take his Quantum Fluctuations seriously because he ignored my Quantum Entanglement.

3. Lack of interference- Con asks how I know God created us for entertainment? My answer is logic. Why else would God create the universe? If God was absolutely perfect, it would have no need of creating a universe, therefore God must be bored about something. Think about it if you always existed and were so powerful and were all alone, wouldn't you feel lonely and bored? Wouldn't you create a universe so you can abuse your infinite power? Of coarse you would, any being would, so logic tells us that God would create the universe for entertainment, and so it doesn't have to be good, so this argument is useless, because God is evil and enjoys watching us suffer, and doesn't need or want to help us, so the problem of evil does not apply to my God because it is not omnibenevolent, and I know this because the universe needs a creator, but the creator doesn't seem to care, therefore he doesn't care, plain logic, something Con doesn't have because he can't account for the laws of logic, without a universal mind.

4. The consistent replacement of supernatural explanations of the world with natural ones- my arguments do prove there are enormous gaps in Con's worldview. His worldview is like an unfinished puzzle, with no pieces put together. Con cannot account for the laws of logic, when he uses logic, the origin of the universe, Quantum Physics, psychic phenomenon, shaolin monks, and the death of lekhram and zia al haq (points Con completely ignores) These aren't just little gaps in our knowledge, these are enormous gaps, with these gaps, atheism can hardly be considered a wordview, and rather be a religion of the ignorant.

We may never have answers to these questions. These are the big questions, Who are we? Where are we? Where do we come from? Atheism ignores all of these, it has no answers.

At our present knowledge using the process of elimination, we can rule out natural explanations for the phenomenon I just described and take seriously supernatural explanation.

Con says, "You seem to think that if there is no scientific or natural explanation present then that is automatically not only a case for your God but evidence as well. Of course this is a ridiculous notion."

No natural explanation leads credence to a supernatural explanation, take ufos as an example, we have no natural or conventional explanation for the tinley park ufos, therefore we have to take supernatural explanations (Secret Government technology, Ets, etc.) seriously,

same with shaolin monks, the video I sent (that Con probably didn't even watch) proved that Qigong is real, and that spears don't go through Shaolin monks. There is no natural explanation, therefore we have to take supernatual explanations seriously such as Chi as the shaolin monks claim.

My God is this Chi energy or this supernatural force that protects shaolin monks, and this is a valid proof for my God.

Con has yet to provide a naturalistic explanation for the 7 phenomenon I posted, therefore we have tot take seriously the supernatural explanation.

As for Nostradamus predictions that came true, Con does not even provide a mechanism for how they came true, only my mechanism makes sense, Con doesn't even have an explanation.

And Con your explanation for the laws of logic is wrong, because they are universal not subjective, so please come up with a better explanation, because so far you have not accounted for the laws of logic.

and please tell me who killed lekhram and zia al haq, please give me names, and don't dodge the question.

Conclusion:

I have refuted all of Con's points (Lack of evidence, 1000s of gods, problem of evil, and supernatural vs natural explanations)

The have all been thoroughly debunked with the arguments I gave, but Con has yet to refute or even answer a single of my arguments.

I wish Con good luck, and I still feel disappointed that he did not answer a single of my questions, why I should take quantum fluctuations seriously and not quantum entanglement, how con accounts for the laws of logic, how waves become particles when an observer observes them, how particles instantly affect each other, how come spears and drills don't go through shoulin monks, and more importantly who killed lekhram and zi al haq? Why John Alexander Dowie met such a pitiful end, and who saved Mirza Tahir Ahmad from Pakistan, and the mechanism for the predictions of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and Zia Al Haq, Con did not answer a single of my arguments and Questions but dodged all of them, I pray that Con gains more knowledge and finds out that God does exist, inshallah Ameen
QandA

Con

Pro, my main point from all your arguments is that even if there may be no natural explanation as of yet for certain things then that does not mean that the answer must be because of a God. Science may uncover the truth in 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years or never however this does not mean that by default the answer must lie with an intelligent energy God, nor is this any sort of evidence for one existing.

You say "I cannot prove God 100% but I have given some proof which suggests there is a God". This is certainly a big contradiction. If you have indeed given some proof then that would mean that your God does exist and I have certainly not seen any of this proof. Also you say "it is more likely there is a God, because no God=no universe and no laws of logic." This is a fallacious argument. Nowhere is it a rule that the universe and the laws of logic must have 100% been created by a God. You are saying this on the assumption that the universe and the laws of logic were indefinitely made by God yet it is simply invalid to suggest this as we do not know fully how the universe was created. Now as for the laws of logic, I think we can agree that the laws of logic are necessary and are not contingent. Also I think it is fair to assume that things that exist necessarily do not require an explanation of their existence. Therefore, any worldview that recognizes this adequately accounts for the laws of logic. Even if the laws of logic are a total mystery to natural explanation, this would not deduce or prove that a God exists or is the cause of these laws.

Again you seem to have a very high confidence in your self as you actually claim that you know where the universe came from. Most of us recognize the notion of "The big bang" as the foundation for the formation of the universe. Now it is pointless to say what happened before the big bang as this is irrelevant given that time and space itself came with the big bang. Although the big bang is not 100% proven it is agreed on by most astrologers, fits best with our understanding of the universe and is supported by things such as the abundance of light elements found in the universe, the expansion of the universe and the evolution of the earth the formation of galaxies and the cosmic microwave background radiation also support this theory. (http://www.universetoday.com...)

We can take supernatural explanations seriously all day but we cannot assume that these are evidence for God as you did. You now say that you put forward "logical arguments" for the existence of God but I'm sorry, throughout the debate you have constantly referred to these arguments as "evidence" and PROOF of God's existence. This was your big mistake. I would like to say that throughout the debate I have indeed been consistently refuting your arguments. I constantly referred to them having no possible backbone as you said that they must be proof of God because as of yet there may not be a natural explanation. You did not use logic throughout your arguments you merely claimed that whatever you said must be true without a doubt. You criticize me for not successfully rebutting your arguments however I have consistently been doing so and even if I haven't, what more rebutting do I need other than saying that claiming that your theories are absolutely true is in no way making a case for God's existence. I am glad that you acknowledge that I used logic in my arguments because that is essential for this topic. I did not say that my points showed that God completely did not exist as this would have meant that I would practically forfeited the debate. You making this claim resulting in it being impossible to reason with you as you merely said that my points could not be taken into account because you have already allegedly proven how God exists.

You move on to attack Atheism itself, you say that it ignores all the big questions. This is totally wrong of an accusation. Atheists can admit when there is no present natural explanation for something but Science is constantly working on uncovering the answers. You on the other hand just say that your God must undoubtedly be true with no evidence.

My opponent also thinks that I am dodging his Nostradamus and Lekhram/Zia al haq arguments. Of course I'm not dodging them, I am choosing to not give them a lot of rebutting as they cannot possibly be a valid argument for your God. It's funny because you have not given any sources on how accurate these predictions are but this is irrelevant because even if Nostradamus could predict the future, how would this show that God is real? It's the very same with Zia al haq. There is no logical relation between the two.

Early on in the debate I realized that if you were just going to say that your arguments showed evidence/proof then this was going to be a disappointing debate. My arguments showed logical reasoning on why a God seems unlikely. You say that you refuted all these points and that I refuted none of yours however you just attempted to refute them by saying that they cannot possibly be valid because yours were. Which might I add had no backbone to them.

The one thing you cannot argue with Pro is facts. For my points I used facts to show the unlikeness of God existing. The fact that thousands of God's have existed within the minds of mankind, the fact that there is no evidence after all this time, the fact that supernatural explanations have consistently been replaced with natural ones etc. I used these points to comprise a rational argument. You used no such rationality in your arguments. You merely said that because we may not know a natural explanation for X or Y yet then this deduces that God is real. It does not make any logical sense. I don't see how one can think they can get away with such extraordinary accusations with no backbone. I wished you would have instead tried to make a case for the likelihood of such supernatural theories being true over natural explanations but you didn't. Also in the future I advise you to make the definition of your God in the opening round rather than the second round so.

All in all despite popular accusations I feel my arguments still stand as my opponent could not come up with a rational argument against them, only that they couldn't be valid because that does not flow with the idea of his God (who he claims to be undoubtedly true). Again this counter argument does not make any sense. You cannot argue with facts Pro but you can certainly argue with people who claim things to be facts without any evidence. The point of my arguments and Atheism in general is to use what we know to come up with logical arguments against the existence of God, while at the same time always seeking new answers to the big questions and not accepting arguments from ignorance that claim to be true. Where is the benefit in not even searching for new answers and saying that there is no natural explanation yet so this is evidence of God?

Despite our fair share of quarreling I still enjoyed debating with you and I wish you luck.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Mothman 2 years ago
Mothman
@QandA I advise you to do more research and stop believing in Atheism. Along with Reading Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss and the others I encourage you to read John Keel's books, David Icke's books, Loren Coleman's books, Zechariah Sitchin's books, and a lot of other books, and I advise you to listen to coast to coast am and watch UFO Hunters and Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura, and the Alex Jones show

I advise you to think for yourself and stop believing in what the government and mainstream science tell you to.

There might be a God, and there might be paranormal phenomenon, I encourage you to search for the truth yourself and not believe what others tell you too

Good luck to you in life and your journey to find the truth, ameen
Posted by Mothman 2 years ago
Mothman
but how is a particle both a wave and a particle at the same time? If a particle was a wave originally as the experiment shows, how does it change to a particle just by magnetism?

Your theory makes no sense to me, and I as I said I don't buy Rational Wiki, it is the government's way of covering up the phenomenon

My theory makes more sense that Consciousness is creating reality, and that's how waves become particles

and what about Quantum Entanglement and Shoulin Monks? that proves my theory more
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
The magnetism from the measuring/detecting observer instrument removes the waveform properties of the dualism and leaves only the particle.
We cannot keep both properties when an observer/detector mechanism is in place, as some property of the observer influences the observed, because an observer must be an active element, thus have energy properties of it's own, in order to detect energy.
Posted by Mothman 2 years ago
Mothman
But how does the very nature of the particle change? Why does it suddenly become a particle? if light from the measurement was just distorting the experiment wouldn't we have more waves? If light is a wave, then a wave plus a wave equals more waves not particles, so please tell me how the wave become a particle?

and please also explain to me quantum entanglement

ps I don't buy Rational Wiki I think they just have an agenda and are biased, they never were able to explain the Tinley Park Sightings of proven ufos
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
BTW The observer effect in Quantum physics has been explained by observer interference.
It has been found that it is almost impossible to observe any Quantum process without interfering with it.
The fields created by the observer equipment in operation interfere with the waveform part of the experiment and thus the electrons lose their wave nature, when the observer equipment is turned off, the waveform nature returns. Simple isn't it.
Some Physicists believe this falls in line with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which is used to explain the change in patterns due to interference of the slit and partially explains the observer effect.
Though the arguments are endless, since we really cannot observe nor test quantum physics properly while observer effects exist that cannot be taken out of the equations.
This is what makes a lot of Quantum physics so very tricky.
To observe a reaction, we must interfere with it. How do we remove this interference mathematically, since we cannot remove it physically???????
We cannot measure anything without interfering in some way.
http://theobservereffect.wordpress.com...
http://rationalwiki.org...

Though the real fact is, we cannot measure or even detect or count electrons without interfering with it, which of course changes its properties (energy) and direction.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tahir123 2 years ago
tahir123
MothmanQandATied
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 didn't answer any of pro's questions or points, while pro answered all of con's points