The Instigator
Leonardo
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
iUnderdog
Pro (for)
Losing
0 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 3 votes the winner is...
Leonardo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/27/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,089 times Debate No: 37079
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

Leonardo

Con

I don't know if God exists, however I am inclined to be sceptical. I want my opponent to present empirical, scientific and rational evidence for the existence of God. However, religions rely often on blind faith and scripture as sufficient evidence for the existence of God. I don't regard scripture as evidence for God's existence, as otherwise you can argue all religions with a holy scripture is true.

Isn't it a remarkable coincidence that almost everyone has the same religion as their parents? And it always just happens to be the right religion. Religion runs in families. If we had been born in ancient Greece, we would all be worshipping Zeus and Apollo. If we had been brought up as Vikings, we would be worshipping Thor and Wotan. How does this come about? Through religious childhood indoctrination.

Even if we assume God exists, which religion out of the over 10,000 religions is the right one?

The evidence for the tooth fairy and God is equal. Why don't you believe in the tooth fairy? You would probably say due to the lack of evidence. Well, that's the same reason I don't believe in God at the moment.
iUnderdog

Pro

First off, this is my first debate and I am religious (obviously) and a Christian. The religion i will proving is thus.

For my first argument it will be that of logic. I want you to think of every great thing that has happened as far as building goes. Think about the pyramids, the Eiffel Tower, and other great things that have been built on this world. What do they all have in common? They all have a plan. No matter what no one just decided to try and throw things together and hope something good came out of it. They all had a plan. Now, think of all the plans in the world. What's one thing they have in common? They all have a planner. No plan is planner less. This world is no different. If you think that this world simply came about, that is just foolish. Therefore we have to deduce that there is a planner, a God alive in this world

Suppose you put ten pennies, marked from one to ten, into your pocket and give them a good shuffle. Now try to take them out in sequence from one to ten, putting back the coin each time and shaking them all again. Mathematically we know that your chance of first drawing number one is one in ten; of drawing one and two in succession, one in 100; of drawing one, two and three in succession, one in 1000, and so on; your chance of drawing them all, from number one to number ten in succession, would reach the unbelievable figure of one in ten billion.

By the same reasoning, so many exacting conditions are necessary for life on the earth that they could not possibly exist in proper relationship by chance. The earth rotates on its axis 1000 miles an hour at the equator; if it turned at 100 miles an hour, our days and nights would be ten times as long as now, and the hot sun would likely burn up our vegetation each long day while in the long night any surviving sprout might well freeze.

Again the sun, source of our life, has a surface temperature of 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and our earth is just far enough away so that this "eternal life" warms us just enough and not too much ! If the sun gave off only one half its present radiation, we would freeze, and if it gave as much more, we would roast.

The slant of the earth, tilted at an angle of 23 degrees, gives us our seasons; if the earth had not been so tilted, vapors from the ocean would move north and south, piling up for us continents of ice. If our moon were, say, only 50,000 miles away instead of its actual distance, our tides might be so enormous that twice a day all continents would be submerged; even the mountains could soon be eroded away. If the crust of the earth had only been ten feet thicker, there would be no oxygen, without which animal life must die. Had the ocean been a few feet deeper, carbon dioxide and oxygen would have been absorbed and no vegetable life could exist.

This is just the first reason I believe in God. If you think this would all happen by chance, well then you need to adjust your thinking.
Debate Round No. 1
Leonardo

Con

This is my first debate too.

Most people stay in the religion they are born into. If you had been brought up a Sikh or a Jew, you would most likely have believed that religion is true and all other religions, including Christianity are wrong.

You have a logical thinking, arguing that everything needs a planner, or shall we say a cause e.g. humans created/were the cause of a particular building. Although every event in our world and daily life has a cause, it does not mean the totality (e.g. the universe) has a cause. This is like saying that just because every human has a mother, therefore the human race as a whole has a mother. You would disagree that the human race has a mother, hence the totality of something does not require a (logical) cause like the individual effects and events within it.

I don't believe we came about by mere chance, as I am note completely sure of the exact reason. You wouldn't be able to say that it can't be by chance if all the circumstances weren't correct for life to take place. You wouldn't exist to say it. We can only say this because all the measures are perfect and we are here, whether it be by chance. However, saying that God did it, is no more better than someone arguing that the tooth fairy or the flying spaghetti monster created the universe. For all we know, the creator could be a unicorn. I see no link between arguing the universe was caused and saying God did it, as there is no evidence for this.

It is logical to think the universe has a cause- God. But why stop here? If you believe everything requires a cause, then what caused God? You may argue God is un-caused, but we can argue the same about the universe, that it is infinite and exists without a cause, like we say for God.
iUnderdog

Pro

Part of the reason that I believe that God created it and not some magical unicorn or tooth fairy is the validity of the bible.

The first Part of this is that people in biblical times show clearer understanding of the world than the society around them.

Examples:

Isaiah 40:22-He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.
Here it shows the understanding of the world being round and not flat long before this idea was proposed.

At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth"s free float in space: "He...hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7).

Medical science has only recently discovered that blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day.

Science has discovered that stars emit radio waves, which are received on earth as a high pitch. God mentioned this in Job 38:7: "When the morning stars sang together..."

I could go on but you see people of God in the bible understood things way before society did.

Another reason I believe the bible is valid as opposed to other religions is that the Bible is self-consistent, despite having been written by more than 40 different writers over a timespan of about 2,000 years. God"s moral law, man"s rebellion against God"s law, and God"s plan of salvation are the continuing themes throughout the pages of Scripture.

Examples:

Predicted 732 BC: Isaiah says Egypt and Ethiopia would be conquered by Assyria (Isaiah 20:3-5)."Fulfilled 673-670 BC when Assyria conquers the northeast African nations.

Predicted 543 BC: Daniel tells of a great Grecian king who would conquer the Persian empire but would have his kingdom divided four ways after his death (Daniel 8)."Fulfilled in 330 BC when Alexander the Great defeats Persia and 281 BC after the Greek generals who succeed Alexander reach an agreement after years of war to split the kingdom four ways.

In approximately 700 B.C. the prophet Micah named the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Israel's Messiah (Micah 5:2). The fulfillment of this prophecy in the birth of Christ is one of the most widely known and widely celebrated facts in history.

In the fifth century B.C. a prophet named Zechariah declared that the Messiah would be betrayed for the price of a slave"thirty pieces of silver, according to Jewish law-and also that this money would be used to buy a burial ground for Jerusalem's poor foreigners (Zechariah 11:12-13). Bible writers and secular historians both record thirty pieces of silver as the sum paid to Judas Iscariot for betraying Jesus, and they indicate that the money went to purchase a "potter's field," used"just as predicted"for the burial of poor aliens (Matthew 27:3-10).

Some 400 years before crucifixion was invented, both Israel's King David and the prophet Zechariah described the Messiah's death in words that perfectly depict that mode of execution. Further, they said that the body would be pierced and that none of the bones would be broken, contrary to customary procedure in cases of crucifixion (Psalm 22 and 34:20; Zechariah 12:10). Again, historians and New Testament writers confirm the fulfillment: Jesus of Nazareth died on a Roman cross, and his extraordinarily quick death eliminated the need for the usual breaking of bones. A spear was thrust into his side to verify that he was, indeed, dead.

I could go on if you like but you see the validity of the bible is a the reason I believe in God and not some unicorn or tooth fairy.
Debate Round No. 2
Leonardo

Con

I want to thank Albert for reminding me to not drift off the topic (in comments section) by asking some irrelevant questions which I did in round one. I might use those questions to create another debate in the future. Also, thank you to MysticEgg for notifying me that the debate title should have been 'God Exists' and then I should have taken the con position. Hopefully these mistakes won't repeat as I become more experienced in debating.

Criticisms To Your Arguments:

1. "Isaiah 40:22-He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.
Here it shows the understanding of the world being round and not flat long before this idea was proposed."

The earth is a sphere. The Hebrew word translated as circle in this verse is chuwg. The word is used only three times in the Old Testament and is translated in three different verses as circle, circuit, and compass. Chuwg does not connote a spherical shape. In the case of Isa. 40:22, it describes the earth as being a flat disk. If the author of this verse had wanted to describe the earth as a sphere, he would be expected to have used the word duwr which is translated as ball in Isa. 22:18. The Hebrews had a word that would have correctly described the earth as a sphere. The author of Isaiah didn't use it in Isa. 40:22, but he did use it in Isa. 22:18 where he was describing a spherical object. Instead, he used a word that was understood to mean a flat round disk. The author of Isaiah simply got it wrong. No divine insight (and certainly no scientific insight) is evident with this verse. (1)

2. "At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth"s free float in space: "He...hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7)."

The full quote is: Job 26:7 (written 3500 years ago): "He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth upon nothing." The laughable view of the earth sitting on a large animal is a product of pagan religious mythology, not science. You can't blame that kind of thinking on scientists because there were no formally trained scientists around 3500 years ago who thought such a thing.

Although the ancient Greeks had a quasi-scientific approach to reality, true science (the method of learning based on observation, hypotheses and experimentation) did not reach full development until the Renaissance period. No true scientist, who practices the scientific method, has ever claimed that the earth is sitting on anything.


The word north in this passage is used synonymously with firmament. What this passage is describing is the stretching of the dome shaped firmament over the earth with no supports in the middle. To the ancient Hebrews, the earth was unattached to the center of the dome (i.e. the earth hung on nothing) just like the floor of a building is unattached to the center of a dome that covers it.

The notion that the earth hangs on nothing is contradicted by other verses. For example Psa. 104:5 "[Who] laid the foundations of the earth, [that] it should not be removed for ever." Of course, we now know the author of Job was wrong when he said the earth hangs on nothing. It hangs on the gravitational fields of the sun, moon, and other planets in its vicinity. It is this attraction that keeps the earth in orbit around the sun. Not only did the author of Job not know that the earth revolved around the sun, he did not know anything about gravitation fields because they are invisible and God apparently neglected to tell him about them. He surmised the earth hung on nothing because when he looked at the "dome of heaven" there appeared to be nothing that attached the earth to it. (1)

3. "Science has discovered that stars emit radio waves, which are received on earth as a high pitch. God mentioned this in Job 38:7: "When the morning stars sang together..."

I don't see how you can interpret that quote in the scientific way you are claiming. Even metaphorically, stars singing is a very different thing from emitting radio waves. You are trying to fit your interpretation of the Bible with science, anyone can do that with any un-scientific book by imagining, exaggerating and by having no limits to the open interpretation.

4. Just because a scripture tells you about a supernatural and transcendent being's moral laws and "plan of salvation", doesn't mean that it is true or that these continuing themes (like in stories and fairy tales) prove God's existence. I can create a book about a holy unicorn's moral laws, man's rebellion against the holy unicorn's law and the holy unicorn's plan for salvation as continuing themes throughout this book, but none of this proves this holy unicorn exists, although it makes a great story!

5. "In approximately 700 B.C. the prophet Micah named the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Israel's Messiah (Micah 5:2). The fulfillment of this prophecy in the birth of Christ is one of the most widely known and widely celebrated facts in history."

In the first place, "Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chr.2:19, 2:50-51, 4:4). Secondly, the prophecy, as understood by Herod’s scribes refers to a military commander, as can be seen from the context of Micah 5:6, which says:

“He will be their peace. When the Assyrian invades our land and marches through our fortresses, we will raise against him seven shepherds, even eight leaders of men. They will rule the land of Assyria with the sword, the land of Nimrod with drawn sword. He will deliver us from the Assyrian when he invades our land and marches into our borders.”


This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did. This is basic exegesis. If Jesus is who Micah referred to as having been born in Bethlehem, then Jesus was also supposed to conquer the Assyrians. (2)


Arguments Against God's Existence:


1. "Is he (God) willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? then whence evil?” (David Hume)

You may argue God has given us free will, but omnibenevolence means He would want and have to act to stop all evil, as He is all loving and compassionate. So this characteristic should prevent evil despite of free will. As evil exists in a world with an omnibenevolent God, this could mean God does not exist.


2. Since God is invisible, and the universe is no different than if He did not exist, it is simpler to assume He does not exist, until empirical evidence for His existence is presented. Remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

3. The supposed miracles of the Bible which you may argue prove God's existence, do not have any greater claim on reality than the claims of seeing UFO. In fact, claims of seeing UFO may be more believable than the supernatural assertions of religion, because a visit from another planet may not require violation of the laws of nature, as do supposed Biblical miracles.

4. The supposed miracles that attest to a supernatural power all happened in ancient, pre scientific times, in which there existed no means of reliable verification. These supposed Biblical miracles (like Jesus turning water into wine and walking on water) are not occuring today so that we could observe, experiment and prove that such things are possible.

A loving God would not raise such high barriers to belief and then increase the difficulty in believing by providing us with such strong evidential circumstances against the supernatural, such as the inviolability of the laws of nature.

Source:

(1) http://home.nctv.com...
(2) http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co.uk...




iUnderdog

Pro

First off I would like to rebut some of my arguments from previous rounds.

Logical Argument- I would just like to reiterate the fact of how great this world was created. How great and specific everything runs in our body and in the world around us. To say that this simply happened because of a giant boom is outrageous. Whenever America sent to Atomic bomb to Hiroshima and Nagasaki they didn't expect that the pyramids would be built out of a big boom. And to emphasize my point the human body is far more complex than any structure and to say a giant boom could build our bodies this perfectly is just not realistic.

Bible Argument- You argued one of the prophecies I showed you. This leaves 3 left out of hundreds that I could have chosen that still stand. No other person or thing has every predicted to this amount of accuracy. This just emphasizes the legitimacy of the bible and when the bible is this right about prophecy's there is no way that it's going to be wrong about the sole reason it was written. God. It was written about God and the fact that it is right of historical events shows that it is also true about God existing and I can guarantee no book written about unicorns can do that.

But some of your points you argued about at the end of last round.

1. So we agree God has given us free will. He is all loving and compassionate as you said too. We also agree that he wants to stop evil. However he doesn't want to stop it so bad that he will take away our free will. He loves us so much that he won't. This means that he won't stop all the evil. Evil comes from us. If God took away our free will to make evil disappear that would be no point in us living.

Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death (James 1:13"15).

2. Look to biblical evidence that shows the legitimacy of the bible and thus the legitimacy of God. I would argue that the prophecies written in the bible that tells us of things that happen hundreds of years in the future is extraordinary evidence.

3,4. I won't argue miracles in the bible simply because they can't be proved due to their lack of science in the B.C.'s

5. First off God is a supernatural being therefore laws of nature don't apply to him. That is also why God doesn't have a "cause" as you asked. 2nd. When we are tested which is what you are asking why God does it, Paul answers in James here. You see God has high standards so that we really do love. This comes back to the free will thing. God just wants us to love him unconditionally. If he made it so easy it wouldnt require us to love him. It wouldnt be free will because if God just walked around the earth you would either have to follow him or most likely be shunned by everyone else in this world.

James 1:2-8

2 Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, 3 because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. 4 Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. 5 If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. 6 But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7 That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. 8 Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do.

More Scientific/Archeology Proof of Jesus.

First it was the name of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate found in a monument in Caesarea, Israel, in 1961.
Then came the discovery in 1990 in Jerusalem of an ossuary, a burial box for bones, bearing the name of Caiaphas, the high priest who condemned Jesus. Just recently it appears the most spectacular of all archaeological finds relating to Jesus has surfaced.
Another ossuary has come to light, this one bearing the names of Jesus, James and Joseph, three of the most prominent people in the New Testament. The ancient Aramaic words inscribed on the limestone box state that it belonged to "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."
In late October Andre' Lemaire, a specialist in ancient inscriptions and professor at the Sorbonne in Paris, announced the discovery of the stone container with the extraordinary script. An Israeli collector, Oded Golan, had purchased the box from an Arab antiquities dealer more than a decade ago. Mr. Golan had not thought the artifact important until Professor Lemaire examined it. In fact, although Mr. Golan had read the inscription, he hadn't connected it with the biblical Jesus.
The dealer told Mr. Golan that the box had come from a burial site in southern Jerusalem where a bulldozer had accidentally uncovered a site containing tombs and bone boxes dating to the time of Jesus and James.

You see things that are popping up keep pointing to one thing. God Exists. I look forward to your reply and apologize for my reply taking so long.

Sources:
http://www.ucg.org...
http://www.answersingenesis.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Leonardo

Con

No need to apologise as long as you answered within the time given.

1. I agree the human body is complex, however you don't need to believe in a supernatural and transcendent being (for whom there is no empirical evidence) to understand the reason behind it. You can study evolution by natural selection which explains how we have evolved to become as complex as we are today. Why isn't the Big Bang being the original cause of the complex systems in our body, realistic? I would argue it is more than just realistic, there is evidence for the Big Bang and evolution by natural selection.

2. I have already criticised many of the Biblical prophecies in round three. I used the unicorn example to refute a particular argument of yours, not to claim that history confirms a book about the existence of unicorns. I agree history confirms the existence and many teachings of Jesus and other prophets. However, this does not mean what Jesus or anyone else claimed was necessarily true. People can be deluded and easily fooled to believe in false things in a pre-scientific era. For example people have worshipped the sun and used to believe that an eclipse meant the sun God was angry. However, as science developed, we now know this is false and we understand the sun and the world around us better.

So if Jesus' claims about divinity, life after death, hell and heaven, and God can be proved by science, then God exists. However, as science wasn't very much developed at Jesus' time, it is not rational to assume that irrational and divine claims in the Bible and about Jesus (which also break the laws of nature) are true.

3. It is possible to have free will and live in a world without evil. For example only having the choice of doing a good deed and something even more good. Just like we have free will and can't choose to fly (without any aid) or to shoot fire out of our hands (as you would say God did not create this option for human kind), God could have created such a world where humans could have free will without evil existing, as God is omnipotent. This is assumably similar to paradise, in which humans have free will, but God won't allow evil to exist. If you argue evil comes from us due to our free will, then where do we come from? And whose fault is that?

Omnibenevlonece means God has all possible love for humans, which means He couldn't let evil exist, as all kindness, compassion and love come from Him. It doesn't mean God loves us so much He doesn't want to take away our free will. This is like saying that a father is watching his son, who is tied to the train track with a train fast approaching, but the father loves his son so much that he wants his son to choose himself and try to save his own life. This is reidiculous! God has the power yet doesn't love his creation enough to stop innocent women being raped, young children who never got a chance at life to die and murder of innocent people throughout the world. This doesn't look good for an omnibenevolent God. Ofcourse, it is reasonable to believe from this, as some do, that God doesn't exists because of the evil He could have prevented without revealing Himself on earth.

Many Infants die before they get the chance to 'love God' due to natural disasters etc. So much evil makes it hard for the Abrahamic, personal and caring God to exist.

4. If you believe everything requires a cause, then even with God being supernatural, you are contradicting your own presmise by saying God is uncaused, as then it means not everything requires a cause. Hence you can say the same about the universe.

5. "But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind."

It is important to doubt irrational and extraordinary claims which lack evidence. Scientists doubt, test and experiment before arriving at a conclusion. I would say someone who doubts the existence of God or that 1+1=3 because they have been told it by someone, is rather wise for doubting.

6. As I have said, I agree to the historical existence of Jesus, however just by proving Jesus existed in the past and said this and that, do not prove God exists, these are two very different things.
iUnderdog

Pro

First this is not a debate on evolution or big bang but I would first like to say if we evolved from monkeys then why are monkeys still around? Doesn't evolution say that the species evolves and not just half of it. Also, on the subject of the big bang you say that even outer space has natural laws and naturals laws state everything has a beginning. This means that somewhere along the line there was a beginning. Now God being a supernatural being means that natural laws don't apply to him. Now evidence of the big bang or evolution may have been happened but they were a natural thing according to you making this have to have a beginning thus one can assume God created those things.

If there was only good in the world we would be forced to worship to God because if there was no sin God would clearly be evident. However, God does't want us to be robots that walk where we want but ultimately being controlled by him.

This is where all evil comes from like rape and mass murder. The evil inside of people.

Also everyone does doubt but God wants us to overcome this. That is why he tells us to pray for our unbelief and gives us an example of this man doing it. (MARK 9:24)

FInally I do not understand how you can agree on the existence of Jesus of Jesus and the legitimacy of biblical prophecies First you agree with the prophecies yet you don't believe in Jesus. No other person or thing has had the power to prophecy like this ever. No other person can do that. Now if there was no power behind that why wouldn't more people prophecy? Now to Jesus, you say you believe in him but not everything he stood for. He died on the cross and was raised yet you don't believe in God. That's like saying you believe in rain but can't but don't believe in came from clouds. It is simply unrealistic.
Debate Round No. 4
Leonardo

Con

1. Topics of evolution and the Big Bang are relevant to our debate if you argue God created the universe through the Big Bang and developed life through evolution. However, you haven't proved this.

2. For your question about why monkeys still exist since you think we evolved from them, please see MysticEgg's answer in the comments section. Humans haven't evolved from monkeys, but have a common ancestor. For more information: http://www.evolutionfaq.com...

3. You're saying God is uncaused and supernatural like it's a proved fact! Just because you believe God is beyond the laws of nature and assume God created the Big Bang, doesn't mean it's true or that there is empirical evidence for your claims. Evolution and Big Bang are strong theories supported with scientific and empirical evidence, but if you are to assume "God created those things", then a person might as well assume the tooth fairy created the Big Bang and caused evolution. The evidence for both of these assumptions are the same- none. Don't treat your assumption and belief as definite and absolute fact to prove God exists.

4. If evil didn't exist in the world, this still would not be evidence for the existence of God. There just being 'good' in the world is not empirical evidence for God's existence. I don't see how we would be "forced to worship God" and how God would be evident by there not being evil. Again, these are just claims without evidence.

5. If you believe evil comes from "inside of people" then where do you believe humans come from? If God is the source of everything, doesn't sin also come from God? Linking this back to the motion, the fact that evil exists and you say God has given us free will, still don't prove God exists. You have to prove God exists before you prove free will comes from God.

6. Atheists doubt God's existence because of the lack of evidence; praying doesn't prove God exists and therefore doesn't remove your doubt. If you presented some scientific and empirical evidence for the existence of God, I would convert and so would any people who would accept the strong evidence. However, since you haven't showed any evidence, people are obviously going to doubt the extraordinary claim of the existence of a transcendent and supernatural
being who is personal and cares about our actions and sex life.

7. I believe (and so may you) in the historical existence of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, Ghandi and even Hitler. Now, just because I believe Hitler existed, does not mean I believe what he did was right. I haven't said I believe in the "legitimacy of biblical prophecies", only that I believe certain human prophets in history have existed. That doesn't prove what they claimed is true. For example, if history confirms the existence of a person who claimed the tooth fairy or the flying spaghetti monster exist (without evidence), it doesn't mean I will believe what they stood for and claimed was true. There is a difference between a person 'existing' and 'proving' their supernatural claims with evidence.

8. I believe in rain and that it derives from clouds because of the evidence. However, it is unrealistic to accept the existence of a supernatural being without evidence.

In conclusion, I am disappointed that my opponent couldn't offer any strong scientific and empirical evidence for God's existence.
My opponent argued the Bible tells us about the future, but I have criticised these quotations in round three. My opponent argued our body and the world around us are complex, so couldn't have happened by a "giant boom". I replied that evolution by natural selection explains this complexity without the need of a God. My opponent argued humans have been given free will by God, which explains why there is evil in the world. However, this still doesn't prove God exists. If you claim God is outside of space and time, how can you prove that? You can't, because you can't approach God from within the universe to empirically prove He exists. There is no sign of Him anywhere in the universe. My opponent assumes rather than proves God created the Big Bang, caused evolution and that because Jesus has existed in history, this proves God exists. All of these arguments are just statements and personal beliefs without evidence presented.

It is not upto me to disprove God exists. You can't disprove the existence of the tooth fairy or the flying spaghetti monster either. It is upto the one who believes in the existence of something (e.g. God) to prove it. Hence, when voting, you should consider that my opponent hasn't offered any empirical or scientific evidence from which we could conclude with certainty that God exists.

Bear in mind I won't be able to respond if you present new arguments in round five.

Thank you iUnderdog for this thought provoking debate.
iUnderdog

Pro

iUnderdog forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jaserelijah 3 years ago
Jaserelijah
You cannot tie some old pagan belief into the scriptures of Job, this really demonstrates pettiness on the part of pro. The Bible doesn't state that the earth sits upon a large animal and tying the two in that way is very deceptive to anybody who reads this debate. The Bible describes the earth as a circle or a compass in multiple locations. The Bible also describes the earth as being suspended and the argument suggesting that this isn't good enough because it says suspended on nothing, is going a bit overboard. When it says Nothing it simply means it is suspended, meaning it is Not sitting on top of large animals or anything else for that matter. When the Bible refers to the 4 corners of the earth these are the compass points. The Bible isn't a science book, God left a lot for man to discover with regards to this, but the Bible has many science references.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
The appearance of design as an argument for God is an argument from incredulity: "I just can't believe it happened any other way." Saying that everything is either chance or divine plan is a false dichotomy. How is it that snowflakes have six-fold symmetry? The chance of that happening randomly is negligible, so it must be God? No, a few simple laws of nature govern the formation of snowflakes into something that looks like it was designed. Theists can argue that God made those few laws of nature, but that's a very different argument because there are so few of them, fewer than 30. We don't know how many of the laws of nature are linked and how many are independent.

The earth has an ideal, or nearly ideal, combination of temperature and composition and that's unlikely. However, there are about 100 million galaxies averaging about 100 million stars in each. Current theory is that many stars have planets. So even if earth conditions are a 1 in 100 million shot, there would still be tens of millions of ideally suited planets. We are prejudiced because we are sitting on one and cannot see the others.

The debate topic was too broad. It's better to focus in on much narrower subjects, like the probability argument or the argument from evil. Also, five rounds is too much for most readers.
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
"If we are evolved from monkeys...why are they still monkeys?" And modern biology is refuted! Lol.

A: We didn't, we evolved from "homoerectus" (as I recall), and there aren't any homoerectus left. So there!

Sorry if I stole your thunder, Leo, but this was far too good to miss. :P
Posted by alex1234 3 years ago
alex1234
I feel like the argument for the existence of a God is far too bias to the Christian God. If that was implied by the question then I apologise but I feel at the moment the pro god debator is more focused on validating the Christian faith not the existence of a God.
Posted by alex1234 3 years ago
alex1234
I must admit that those videos have a lot of research behind them and I somewhat agree with the first one about God but the second didn't seem to understand the vastness of our universe. Like many others I believe it to be infinite in size which therefore means it would be mathematically impossible for life not to exist as there are a limited number of carbon combinations. This also means that eventually the universe would have to repeat itself, meaning that there is an identical copy of you and I out there! Isn't that awesome!
Posted by CatholicTraditionalist 3 years ago
CatholicTraditionalist
These videos prove that God is real.
Posted by alex1234 3 years ago
alex1234
Sorry mate I'm against the existence of god
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
"To say that this simply happened because of a giant boom is outrageous."
Yeah, no kidding! Wait...did you mean the big bang? That's not what the Big Bang is, you know? Of course you know that! So what did you mean?

@alex1234:
Would you be for or against?
Posted by alex1234 3 years ago
alex1234
This debate is very interesting to me, if anyone is willing to have a live debate through Skype about the existence of god I'm will to participate.
Posted by Albert 3 years ago
Albert
This is a simple question, but ill give you more then enough info. However, please dont throw in red herrings and create several different topics from this one topic. Understand my reply is directed at your topic. If you want to ask many questions, id hope you will only ask once you feel your first question has been answered.

*First topic: Original sin.
Jesus speaks on this topic. He notes that unless your as innocent as these children, you cannot enter the Kingdom of God. Jesus is also the judge of mankind. Therefore since he has been given the power to judge, and he comments on the topic of innocents, we can rest assure Jesus will carry out fair judgement.

Also, remember the man who was crucified to the left of Jesus, who recognized he's the son of God. Jesus said "you will be with me in paradise." Yet this man cannot be baptized hanging on a cross, and he also didnt drink Jesus's blood or eat his flesh.

Alex1234, you recognize that this example is unjust, yet Jesus claims to have created you and claims ultimate justice and all that is good. From what ive explained it proves Jesus is truly just in a unjust world.

Last point: What you've spoken about is purely an assumption of what Jesus would do in this example. Remember, we Christians dont believe in a God of stone, but in Jesus who is alive. Therefore he can understand each situation, such as the situation you have presented, and Jesus can judge accordingly. But, as ive already shown, we dont assume the nature of God that Jesus will do what's best based on our assumption. We know he will, because of what he said.

*Side topic: What would the child do in heaven without a brain.
Your assuming Christians believe the same physical mind on earth is what we have in heaven. No, when you die it's only your spirit and soul (soul: mind, will, emotions) that remains, and Christians will be given a NEW heavenly body like Jesus. Afterall, when someone dies, are they able to take their favorite shoes with the
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
LeonardoiUnderdogTied
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 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: This was too broad a topic, so the debate wandered. Con missed some classic arguments, but it shouldn't be surprising that evidence for God does not amount to proof. The Biblical analysis was interesting and well done. Pro forfeited, but the debate was very close anyway, as few arguments were left unanswered.
Vote Placed by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
LeonardoiUnderdogTied
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: I know this seems like a huge vote bomb, but it isn't - allow me to explain why I voted as I did: First of all, I agreed with Con both before and after; I'm still an atheist. So that's that. Conduct to Con because Pro forfeited in round five. Spelling and grammar was good, except for this sentence: "The religion i will proving is thus." I doesn't make any sense. Spelling and grammar to Con. Con summarised very nicely in round five, making sure that Pro's contentions were utterly refuted. Therefore, I give arguments to Con. Lastly, although both Pro and Con used sources; Con used more. (Pro: 2, Con: 3). So sources go to Con, too. As I said, not a vote bomb, but a justified vote. Good debate, guys!
Vote Placed by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
LeonardoiUnderdogTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited and S/G goes to Con too, because "The religion i will proving is thus." is incorrect grammar. You see, firstly, "i" should be capitalized. Secondly, it should be "The religion I will be proving is thus."