The Instigator
Merlito
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
lord_megatron
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Does God Exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 3 votes the winner is...
Merlito
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 674 times Debate No: 73104
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

Merlito

Pro

God Existed :) He really does, We may not see him, taste him, touch him, hear him, smell him but we can feel him. Science doesn't believe that God existed because of those facts! But they believe that the space is full of planets in which they only discovered 1,700 planets only. Now, They believe that there's billions. They are idiot enough to realize that they haven't tasted,smell,touch,hear,see those other planets except for those discovered ones yet they are still believing that there's billions planet more existed in space.
lord_megatron

Con

First of all, we think we can feel him, but we actually can't/not sure. As for the billion planets theory, we now know that planets have been made by debris joining together. Debris is everywhere in space, so eventually their own gravity would form a planet.
Plus, I once used to believe in God, but now I realized it is bare superstition. With the growing number of atheists, if God really was there wouldn't he do something to strengthen his belief? Why are we brought to the point to debating this if we really felt him?
And do you mean to say that scientists are non-believers that believe? God's existence is not limited to them, and the billion planets is still called a theory. Why God is also not said to be a theory but an entity, an existence?
Debate Round No. 1
Merlito

Pro

Yes I do feel him, You can't feel him because maybe your faith is not that strong at all and how can you say that those planet was just came from a debris that formed together because of gravity? Why sir? Have you ever gone to outer space? In your statement harder to believe than believing in God. Now let's go back to the topic. There's a lot of proof that God Existed and the best one is the BIBLE. It was written 2,500-3000 years ago,By 42 different authors,3 Different Country and never contradict to each other. So it only means that all those things written in the bible is true and for me it really does.
lord_megatron

Con

lord_megatron forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Merlito

Pro

Since you forfeited the last round I would like to add some points. God exist "Christian God" There's too many proofs that he existed. The bible and those things written in the bible. 1 good example is the Empty tomb where Jesus Christ was buried. If you don't believe in God because you can't see,smell,touch,taste,hear him. It's like you're also believing that you don't have brain at all. Trust me i do believe that you have brain but with that analogy you're making me believe that you don't have one. If you don't believe the writings in the bible, Just look at those Points. "Written 2,500-3000 years ago, 42 different authors, 3 different country, never contradicts to each other and the authors didn't even know each other. so It's impossible that it was just edited. What it means is, All of those written is true. At the end of the day, This House Believes that God Existed. I have able to cite many examples, reasons why i believed so and able to defend my side. while the other side of the house is just keep on attacking and asking question and wasn't able to cite examples why he doesn't believe so. It's just because he's an atheist. I raise my case.
lord_megatron

Con

lord_megatron forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Marvin1 1 year ago
Marvin1
Merlito is right! It's not easy to fake a book with many authors with the same context inside. It only means that the written on that book was real. Well done @Merlito
Posted by Merlito 1 year ago
Merlito
Nope I don't believe in a book easily but the bible is different from other books that you mean. Look It was written 2,500-3000 years ago,By 42 different authors,3 Different Country and never contradict to each other and the authors doesn't even know each other! what made you think i won't believe it? They are on the past, They know better than us because we can't go in there but they are able to live in that time.
Posted by Logic_is_key 1 year ago
Logic_is_key
So if someone writes a book that tells you there's a man in the sky and you believe it, but if a sign says wet paint you have to touch the paint in order to believe it.
Posted by cris-tina 1 year ago
cris-tina
then why don't all of you who BELIEVE in god go JUMP OFF A CLIFF and decide if god is real? If science is such a hardship for you, I'm sure you've had no vaccines, use no medications...it shouldn't be a hardship to test your god by jumping off a cliff: IF YOU LEARN HOW TO FLY in MID JUMP: PLEASE, contact me, and I'll review my atheist belief!
Posted by George_Lenton 1 year ago
George_Lenton
While none of the below is evidence against the existence of a godly figure, it certainly is evidence for the formation of the universe. Many would claim the Big Bang a part of God's actions, and I cannot deny them that belief, but it is difficult to refute the Big Bang and claim that God created the universe in another manner without providing any sort of alternative; because you're simply wasting time.

Lastly, don't make the point that science contradicts religion, because it does not. I know numerous individuals, some of which are close friends, that are both religious and scientists. The two subjects can contradict one another, can walk hand-in-hand and also can be absolutely nothing to do with each other,
Posted by George_Lenton 1 year ago
George_Lenton
Taking my comment from a very similar debate, and adding to it:

While I don't believe in any sort of superior, godly, ethereal or omniscient being; I can't claim to be able to prove otherwise, nor can I prove that one such creature exists. However, nobody can. This argument is certainly a good basis for a debate of beliefs or ideals, but there is no room for proof in this debate.

The scientific theory of the Big Bang, thus far, can certainly be considered a realistic cause for the creation of the universe, as there is plenty of evidence for it. However, we cannot say it is the definitive creator of the universe, as we have no proof.

On that note however, there is no evidence, and certainly no proof of the existence of a god, or the God that I assume you speak of. (I'm assuming this is the God of Christianity, Judaism and Islam)

@Merlito -- You claim to be able to 'feel' God, due to your faith, and thus those without faith cannot feel him. And then question the person's theory that actually holds evidence.

"There's a lot of proof that God Existed and the best one is the BIBLE." -- There is absolutely no proof that God existed, and this can barely even be considered evidence; it's a book written by people, which actually consistently contradicts itself. Where as lord_megatron's point about the gravitational pull of asteroids is entirely true, though not the main cause for the formation of a planet.

All massive objects have their own gravitational field. Were you to stand atop a stone, it's gravitational force would be minimal, but it still exists; hence in free space things are attracted to one another - as has been seen. While there is no point in the universe where there is zero gravitational force, certain forces are greater than others, thus the theory that a group of asteroids would eventually cluster is true. On a smaller scale, the attraction of particulates in space, and various gases and elements has resulted in the formation of planets.
Posted by Mike_10-4 1 year ago
Mike_10-4
@lord_megatron

In today's World, our nemesis is lack of moral understanding.

Objective Morality is logical and physically true.
Traditional definition: http://rationalwiki.org...

The first paragraph in Stanford University's Encyclopedia of Philosophy on morality states it nicely.
http://plato.stanford.edu...

The scientific community is starting to examine the link between morality and science, February's 2015 Scientific American article.
http://www.michaelshermer.com...

The articles in February's Scientific American and Stanford's take on morality, relative to "non-human animals," are weak for they lack the Constructal Law connection.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Morality is an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights, which are an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Laws of Thermodynamics, a part of the physical Laws of Nature; not man-made.

A simple YouTube overview on "The Science of Rights," covers the "unalienable" question. A topic the ruling-class tyrannical oligarchs, throughout the world, would not want you to understand.
Posted by lord_megatron 1 year ago
lord_megatron
explain morality and laws of nature. And I am an atheist, but I didn't go about believing in science, but simply not finding anything to satisfy my doubts on him. I argued with many believers, but I wasn't convinced. And what is unalienable? We would be aliens to aliens, so what is unalienable? Hopefully this debater should convince me God exists, but I doubt he can.
Posted by Mike_10-4 1 year ago
Mike_10-4
I take issue with Pro about his spin on "science."

Those of faith believe God created the universe should realize the Laws of Nature are also part of God's creation. Therefore, those laws are simply the handwriting of God and the scientific method is a way to read God's handwriting.

Since those Laws are the handwriting of God and our Unalienable Rights are part of that handwriting (see YouTube video titled: "The Science of Rights"), we come to realize morality is an outgrowth of our Unalienable Rights, a representation of God's fingerprint. Morality is the genesis of traditions, values, beliefs, language, etc. the norms of a culture, from the historical record, not one culture was found to be atheistic.

When man morally follows God's Laws blossoms into the fruits of technology, food production, and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world today. A compelling example when our Unalienable Rights are free to morally operate within the awesome machinery of God's Nature.

On the other hand, man is known to be fallible, prudent caution is served when studying man's written scriptures about the Devine. One may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets--and, in some cases, God help us all (72 virgins when killing infidels, etc.).

In contrast, atheists who think they could replace the perception of God with science are just fooling themselves; for the empirical existence of individual philosophy dynamics may be a law onto itself. Man cannot change a law in nature, he is trapped within its matrix; there are no exceptions.

The scientific method may help man's evolution reducing friction between atheists and those of faith; eliminating the violence between different religions; resulting in freedom of religion, while embracing the diversity of individual philosophies, in a moral framework advancing the civil society.
Posted by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
You should clarify 'God'. I assume that you are referring to the Christian God of the Bible, but you should state in order to be abundantly clear.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 1 year ago
FuzzyCatPotato
Merlitolord_megatronTied
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: ff
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Merlitolord_megatronTied
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: FF.
Vote Placed by HaileyL 1 year ago
HaileyL
Merlitolord_megatronTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side presented any actual fact but the BOP rested on the Pro who failed to show any evidence, rather he relied on "feelings" .