Does God Exist ?
Debate Rounds (3)
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".
God cannot exist, due to the lack of sufficient scientific evidence for his existence.
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.
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?
Prayer has been shown not to work in double blind tests, and under controlled conditions, has shown to have little effect on other people.
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.
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.
"...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.
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
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SirMaximus 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.