The Instigator
FutureAirForceGirl
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AWSM0055
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Does God Exist ?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
AWSM0055
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/7/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 607 times Debate No: 80634
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)

 

FutureAirForceGirl

Pro

Does God exist ?
AWSM0055

Con

God does not exist...why?

Simple; since the dawn of religious beliefs and Holy Books, no one has given sufficient evidence of the distance of a divine creator.

First, we must define "God"
Merriam Webster dictionary states that "God" means:
"The perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe".

First argument:
God cannot exist, due to the lack of sufficient scientific evidence for his existence.

http://godisimaginary.com...

Second Argument:
God cannot exist since religion (whom supposedly represent God) has also failed to give sufficient evidence (supernatural evidence or otherwise) of his existence as well. Religion has also proven to be untrustworthy, violent, and against Gods basic standards anyway, which again makes them untrustworthy.

Third Argument:
If God exists and is all powerful (meaning he is omnipresent, omnibenevolent and omnipotent) why does he himself give no believable evidence for his own existence besides supposed Holy Books dating back 2000 years?

Fourth Argument:
Prayer has been shown not to work in double blind tests, and under controlled conditions, has shown to have little effect on other people.

http://www.patheos.com...
Debate Round No. 1
FutureAirForceGirl

Pro

FutureAirForceGirl
You say that there is no real evidence that he shows himself. But how cant someone witness what he does in your own life? For one thing that is for sure science isn't right about everything and doesn't need to be applied in this subject because even yet they have failed and proving him. Science is almost like its own religion to scientists, they make up something they don't have an answer to. If you are not a believer its hard for anyone to understand how God reveals himself.
AWSM0055

Con

"You say that there is no real evidence that he shows himself. But how cant someone witness what he does in your own life?"

Because that is anecdotal evidence, which is not convincing.

"For one thing that is for sure science isn't right about everything..."

That's true, which is why scientists make hypothesises, find evidence to support them, and if they don't find any evidence, then the hypothesis is dropped. This process is done to every claim and theory, which therefore helps make actual progress in our knowledge, rather than pinning it on God.

http://www.gly.uga.edu...

"...and doesn't need to be applied in this subject because even yet they have failed and proving him."

Yes, we've failed at proving him because there is no evidence! Also, this is an appeal to consequence fallacy. Your assuming God exists, and that scientists have failed at proving God, which therefore makes science unreliable.

"Science is almost like its own religion to scientists, they make up something they don't have an answer to. If you are not a believer its hard for anyone to understand how God reveals himself."

Again, appeal to faith fallacy. The definition of faith is: "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof."

This is not satisfactory nor convincing.

If there is not even a whiff of evidence that supports the existence of superior being besides anecdotal evidence and faith, then I'm sorry, no critic is ever going to believe you!

Finally, your point about science being its own religion is generally irrelevant, a red herring fallacy, and a straw man fallacy. For argument sake, let us assume that ALL scientists treat science as its own religion (which is wrong for obvious reasons, but anyway). It still doesn't matter! Your argument is still irrelevant to the claim in question. In fact, this topic doesn't even necessarily have to do with science at all!

Your making a claim that there is a God. I ask for evidence, and then you proceed to give none, therefore I remain unconvinced. It doesn't have to involve science or scientists at all!

Nevertheless, the definition of religion is: "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

None of the above is true of science. Like I stated before, science itself makes no claims of its own. Science is purely: "[the] systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."

Scientists, through this process, can determine and make laws for the universe to explain the observable patterns in other aspects of the universe so as to make sense of it.

If God is not subject to such testing, then why does religion itself provide no evidence of the existence of God?

Why doesn't God himself provide evidence or provide indication he exists besides anecdotal evidence and 2000 year old books?

You have yet to answer the previous questions. Please do so.
Debate Round No. 2
FutureAirForceGirl

Pro

God himself does prove he exist by the own miracles he does in our lives. Scientist cant prove a God its up to yourself to believe and really the main question is are you atheist or you just don't believe? simple question
AWSM0055

Con

"God himself does prove he exist by the own miracles he does in our lives."

If so, it's pretty vague "proof". I have never experienced a miracle in my life, far less proof of God's existence.
The definition of miracle is: "an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency"

I have never known, nor have I ever experienced the above. If everybody experienced a miracle at least once in their life, I'm sure the debate about God's existence would be over by now. But alas, it's not, since an EXTREMELY few amount of people actually claim they have seen miracles, and almost all the time, it's anecdotal evidence that cannot be tested in a controlled environment as "real".

"Scientist cant prove a God its up to yourself to believe..."

You are relying on faith and faith alone. That is not EVIDENCE. Your claim is an extraordinary claim, and needs a lot of evidence to back it up.

What if I told you, that I own a Lamborghini Veneno, a rocket ship that flys to the moon, and a billion dollar house? According to your logic, you should believe me because "you need to believe".

Not only is it irrational logic, but extremely lazy thinking. In fact, I think your developing mental diabetes!

"...and really the main question is are you atheist or you just don't believe? simple question."

No, the main question was "Does God Exist?". Regardless, I'm an not an atheist or a non-believer. I'm a poly-atheist...there are hundreds of Gods I also don't believe in. XD
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AWSM0055 1 year ago
AWSM0055
OHHHH so God makes me an atheist so he can punish me in hell? What a lovely benevolent deity God is! First he makes you an atheist, and then punishes you afterwards! All aboard the love train everybody!

Also, I was religious once, so did God change his mind about my belief? Hahahahaaha nice try buddy, but that makes as much sense as the possibility of his very existence!

And if God absolutely refuses to reveal himself, then so be it. The earth has lasted for four billion years without his help, and we as the human race have lasted 200,000 years ALSO without his help. The only problem with the human race is the religious people's complete lack of logic and common sense. People like you love nonsense and thrive from it, and it's only slowing everyone down.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to believe in an ACTUAL loving and caring God that existed AND freely shows everyone his existence! I really would! But guess what? Though I like to believe in fantasy, I don't, because I'm not stupid.

If God exists, he must be a real special from of idiot!
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
As for your barrel of atheist spew, you are an atheist because God wishes it so. If you expecting some kind of punishment for your immature behaviour, I'm afraid it's not that easy to manipulate God into proving His existence. He will do so if and when He wills it. Your wants and needs are irrelevant. As are mine.
But ten points for trying. Lol
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
Lol good and evil are human concepts. We judge people by their actions and our actions by our intentions. Think about this, if dying means your soul leaves your body and returns to heaven, how can killing someone be evil? Good and evil exist only in the mind of man.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: soccerisfun// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Aff just questioned scientists instead of giving any arguments whatsoever. Neg's arguments weren't amazing, but still good enough.

[*Reason for removal*] Clear vote bomb. The voter doesn't justify the conduct, S&G or source points allocated. The voter insufficiently justifies their decision on arguments, failing to examine both sides of the debate, the burden of proof, or any other aspects of the debate that could have improved this justification. The voter cannot simply evaluate one set of arguments from one side and call it a day.
************************************************************************
Posted by AWSM0055 1 year ago
AWSM0055
Brando97 - Ok, if you want to challenge me now, I'm ready.
Posted by AWSM0055 1 year ago
AWSM0055
Furyan5 - "Good point. If God exists, why isn't there any proof? Why doesn't God provide us with proof?"

Thank you, I worked hard on that argument.

"Here's my response. Why do you assume God wants everyone to know He exists? Think about it. If there was proof of God, would we live our lives as we do now? Knowing that this life is temporary and death is not final."

Let me quote an old but fantastic philosopher in response to your argument:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? - Then he isn't omnipotent."
Is he able, but not willing? - Then he's malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? - Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? - Then why call him God?
- Epicurus

And yes, we would obviously live our lives differently if we found ample proof of a divine being. Alas, we haven't found a trace of rational proof, therefore we live our lives as if it were our last...which it is.

"And just for the record, absence of proof may make the likelihood less likely, but its far from being proof of absence."

That argument is bollocks. If we can't smell, touch, taste, hear, see or even test the validity of an object/force through scientific tools, then we assume it doesn't exist. If we find no evidence of a Divine Being existing, then we assume it doesn't exist.

"But God is not matter, therefore we can't test him anyway!"

Well bad bloody luck. If God wants to be a vague, imprecise and unclear idiot, then he can stick his head in a barrel of Atheist spew for all I care.
Posted by AWSM0055 1 year ago
AWSM0055
Sure brando97. I'll let you know when I'm ready.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
Good point. If God exists, why isn't there any proof? Why doesn't God provide us with proof?
Here's my response. Why do you assume God wants everyone to know He exists? Think about it. If there was proof of God, would we live our lives as we do now? Knowing that this life is temporary and death is not final. And just for the record, absence of proof may make the likelihood less likely, but its far from being proof of absence.
Posted by Brando97 1 year ago
Brando97
I'd really like to debate you, AWSM0055, on the topic of God's existence after this debate is finished. Do you accept my challenge?
Posted by MizzEnigma 1 year ago
MizzEnigma
Thank you.

I believe you answered it more on point than I did with my couple of paragraphs (more notably with pointing out the errors of the argument Pro gave.) When I read over your arguments, before I had looked at the comments, the thought hadn't even crossed my mind (that you stole my ideas.) Nevertheless, it would have been your debate, so general ideas wouldn't have been surprising (scientific theory concepts and all.) After all, that was what Pro had brought up.

I didn't even realize the commenter below me was Pro lol. I thought it was someone completely different until I looked at the user again. For a second there, I had felt bad about replying. o-o
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SirMaximus 1 year ago
SirMaximus
FutureAirForceGirlAWSM0055Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro and Con tie for conduct, because neither forfeited any rounds. I understood both of them pretty well, so they tie for spelling and grammar. Con made more convincing arguments. Pro merely stated that God proves his own existence, but even acknowledged that science cannot prove that there is a god. Con made the solid argument that there is a lack of evidence for the existence of God, and that if God is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, then he should've given us proof by now. Con cited http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science2.html, which is a .edu site, so it's reliable. Pro didn't cite anything, so Con wins for reliable sources.