Does God Exist?
Debate Rounds (4)
Pro's Opening Statement is to be laid out in Round 1.
Due to the character limit, please try to limit the number of arguments to no more than 3 at any one time.
In order for both sides to have an equal number of rounds,
Pro's final statement in the 4th round is to be replaced with "By mutual agreement, no arguments will be posted here."
God Does Exist.
I hope to hear your arguments for the existence of God in your next statement. There are two main arguments that I will use in my arguments against the existence of God. They are the Problem of Evil and the Argument from Non-Belief.
The Problem of Evil
One reason to not believe in God is the existence of evil in this world. How can an all powerful and perfectly good being allow this evil? The simplest and most plausible explanation is that such a being does not exist. Millions of children have died in the history of wars, famines and natural disasters, the very tenor of nature is that animals should hunt and kill each other in order to survive. More often that not, one would refer to this as nature red in tooth and claw. Such a system has inevitably brought about vast amounts of gratuitous evil. As the ancient Greek philosopher, Epicurus noted, this seems to form an inconsistency in God's omnibenevolent and omnipotent character. Is God able to prevent evil, but not willing? Then he is not omnibenevolent. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is God both willing and able? Then where does evil come from?
The Argument from Non-Belief
Another good reason to disbelieve in God is the large number of unbelievers in this world. There are billions in the history of mankind who have not been exposed to holy texts of the various religions. Why would a God that wants everyone to believe in him not provide clear and unambiguous evidence to convince everyone of his existence? Even today, there are millions who, by no fault of their own, have not been exposed to holy texts such as the Bible. Furthermore, missionaries and texts from oral tradition are insufficient in providing everyone information and access to religion. Even if they have, the evidence presented is inconclusive and not conducive for acceptance. The upshot to this, is that God does not exist.
We've not heard any arguments for the existence of God yet. Thus far, I've presented two arguments against the existence of God. These arguments, when placed besides the traditional arguments in favor of theism, should provide reasonable grounds for doubt regarding the existence of an all powerful and perfectly good God.
My main argument is - The Structure set up by the Religion
Sadly, I lost most knowledge of these when I converted religion, but I have experienced both paths, and to be honest, there are many Gods for different religions. There are Gods in Greek, Muslim and Christian teaching. where one rules above all so it's absurd to say something like "God only belongs in Christian teachings" though you did not quote that. However, here are my looks at the priority of the structure.
Christian - Obviously, the bible is the main source of Christian teachings. It includes real things and places that indeed exist, in which would have been nearly impossible to obtain and export to English territories during that time. Plus, there is strong proof of evolution in the bible, constructed of many races. So, unless there was a so called "God" the teaching could not be shared.
Creationizm - This is a mixture, often simple. Like I just pointed out, evolution could exist in the bible, this is the main point of creationizm.
Atheist - No religious beliefs at all, science proves everything wrong "God" is per-claimed to do. However, let's not forget how unless some sort of miracle (technological advances) happened, this would be impossible for the English and other races to carry on. Maybe, this God could've been somehow involved in this.
Next up, the influences
Since, I am the only atheist in my family, I interviewed my mother,
"What things have happened since you stopped going to church and reading the bible."
"Terrible things, that are usually fixed after we start going back."
She goes into detail (they are horrible)
So, God may exist to those who know of him and that only? Maybe "God' is a figment to remind us to do good?
Regarding your first argument, there have been multiple religions that have spread throughout the history of civilization. Statistics show that the fastest growing religion in the world is Islam at the moment. Thus it'd be questionable if the God of the Bible exists, according to this principle you have adopted. If he does exist and wants his word to be spread across the world, then why are there so many religions in this world? It's not possible for all the religions are true, however it's possible for all of them to be false. As history shows, many religious texts have been spread through the use of force, rather than through the use of supernatural means.
About Creationism, there's strong evidence against the literalist interpretation of the the 6 day creation story. Evolution, as far as I know, is not present in the Bible. And as for the topic of the existence of different races, many have tried using the story of the Tower of Babel to account for it. However, these attempts are unsuccessful and lack convincing evidence.
On your position of science. There's no independent attestation that God intervened in science, and there's no reason to suppose that he did. There are methods such as inductive reasoning, hypothesis testing and falsification to ascertain the truth of scientific principles, though the same can't be said regarding the probability of God's intervention in science and technological developments. There's no litmus test to differentiate between a God altered system and a non-God altered system. Until there is, none of us can say with certainty if such an intervention has occurred. Lastly, even if there was, we would still not be able to know which God it is.
Regarding your last point, could you elaborate what horrible things have happened? It'd be good to share your experiences.
To start off,
You made some intriguing points there, like you could see through every one of my statement. Needless to say, I really like your enthusiasm.
Anyway, regarding your first statement, I do agree with the spread of force but, there is actual proof that the "Bible" happened on a solar planet. Things like the 10 commandments have been found on Mars! Some religions are very similar - one ruler rules over their people and they must praise them. Others, like Japanese religions focus on bettering one's self. Meaning, somehow there could be a lot of holes to gap before we answer that question. Not to mention, life on Mars has been proven to start at least 500 Million years before Earth - could this have something to do with any type of religion (because Muslims, etc. believe there is a ruler) could there be a ruler on all of these planets? In different galaxies? The possibilities are endless, maybe the God of a religion is the first human, that evolved and the one who ruled? Not having extraordinary powers, but classifying itself as ruler. (I know it sounds very unintelligent, but in the universe, everything can be true. Also, there are theories of universes where everything is opposite.
One where there is a God
One where there is a Muslim God
One where Japanese religion is dominant
One where Atheists are right
We just need to unlock the right universe. (This is just theory, but it could be true.) After all, we'll never truly know.
Explaining Examples : Got a Ticket for $200, Our Car was Wrecked, One of Our Family Members Died in A car accident, our house was burnt, our computer, destroyed (I am using my dad's, he has at work) and we lost something very important to our family.
After all, we'll really never ever will know
On the purported evidence that the 10 Commandments have appeared on Mars, the reports regarding these claims are dubious and there's no independent supporting evidence to establish the verisimilitude of these claims. With regards to your position on Eastern religions having positive values on society, there have been many religions throughout the course of history that have made attempts at improving the prospects of mankind. However, the truth of a religious system cannot be determined via the amount of good it has produced in the world. Neither can it be disproven by the amount of bad it has achieved. Similarly, there have been secular ethical theories which make a thoughtful attempt at the betterment of civilization.
On your multiple worlds hypothesis, it could well be true that God exists in some possible universe. But the same could be said for ghosts, poltergeists, fairies and other supernatural entities. However, there's no evidence to show that this probability is likely. As the old adage goes, what is possible may not be probable, and what is probable may not be plausible.
One final comment on the supposedly negative occurrences after leaving religion. Negative issues happen all the time, and we do not have any explanation for why these things happen. It could very well be true that these occurrences were coincidences. As David Hume put it "How would things look like if they were in fact a coincidence? Well, they would look as if they weren't. That's the nature of coincidences." It should also be noted that any naturalistic explanation is much more probable than a supernatural one.
Throughout the course of this debate, I hope readers have found this discussion both stimulating and engaging. This session has merely touched the tip of the iceberg, and it would be too much to suppose that the debate between belief and non-belief has finally been settled. Nonetheless, the differences between us have been clarified and I hope readers will find this debate useful.
Physicist forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 2 years 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:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
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.