Does God exist?
Debate Rounds (3)
Religion condemns us to many restrictions, but normal people can not live under perpetual restrictions, like in prison and go against his nature. People tend to fall in love, but sometimes the make mistakes, that's why some marriages end by getting divorce. Religion prohibits such things, it turns out that people forced to live their whole life's with unloved person. Existing, like in prison is not real life. I think people must live happily and with those whom they really love.
Although what is expected in this debate is vague, I did accept the challenge in the hopes of it being an easy-going, fun, and short debate.
From what I can tell, it appears Con says she does not think that God exists, and in fact there are many arguments against the existence of the Biblical god. What are these, so I can try to respond? Simply stating this is not a proof against the existence of the Biblical god.
Con says there are lots of inconsistencies in the Bible. Please expand that statement. Stating as such without proofs that that is true again is not proof against God. Secondly, how does inconsistencies in the Bible say anything about the existence of God? There is no logical connection.
The rest of your introduction is simply a complaint against the Christian god. First, to make such complaints you have presupposed his existence, thus negating what you are trying to prove. Second, even if you have such complaints, how does that prove God does not exist?
Even though it appears you have accepted the burden of proof ("There are a lot of arguments against existence of biblical god") I will give a few of the classical arguments for the existence of God.
The Ontological Argument
1) It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2) If it is possible that such a being exists, then such a being exists in some possible world.
3) If that being exists in some possible world, then that being exists in every possible world, including the actual.
4) Therefore that maximally great being exists in the actual world.
The Teleological Argument
1) The fine tuning of the universe is due to design, chance, or physical necessity.
2) It is not due to chance nor physical necessity.
3) It is due to design, necessitating a designer.
The Moral Argument
1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2) Objective moral values exist.
3) God exists.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) The universe has a cause (which must be greater than, preceding, and not a part of the universe).
The Cosmological Argument from Contingency
1) Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, either in its own necessity or externally.
2) The universe has an explanation for its existence of God.
3) The universe exists.
4) God exists.
I look forward to your responses, both in backing up your claims and in responding to my arguments.
I would like to point out to our voters that so far Con's argument is:
God does not exist.
A) There are lots of arguments against the existence of god. (But she didn't give any.)
B) There are inconsistencies in the Bible. (But she didn't give any, and this wouldn't be proof against a god anyhow.)
C) God is bad. (Presupposes that God does in fact exist, but she doesn't like him.)
-There are lots of arguments against the existence of god. (But she didn't give any.)
The problem of evil: "Knowing, the Almighty and all-good God is not compatible with the world in which there is evil."
The argument from disbelief disputed existence of an almighty God who wants him to believe that a god could have found the best way to attract the faithful of their own creations.
The analogy of a Russell's Teapot, which meaning is that the burden of proving the existence of God lies at the theist, not doubting. Read more about Russell's teapot.
The paradox of omnipotence expresses an opinion about the logical inconsistency of the concept of an omnipotent being, based on issues like "Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?"
Objection to the cosmological argument - the assumption extends the need for a creator at all to God himself ("Who created God?"). This statement is disputed, that the root cause of everything is God, not the universe ("chicken and egg problem").
The argument from futility asserts that all-knowing all-powerful doesn't need to do anything (particularly, to create the universe) because such creature has no needs and desires - all these concepts are inherent to the subjective human. Thus, the very existence of the universe contradicts the existence of an omnipotent god.
"The historic induction" concludes that the most times in the history of theistic religions (such as ancient Egyptian or Greek) eventually came to regard as false or mistaken, then, by induction, all theistic religions, including modern - are false.
As well as subjective reasons for the existence of God, subjective arguments against the supernatural rely on private evidence or assumptions about religious revelations.
The argument of conflicting religions - different religions describe God in different ways and its regulations. All conflicting data cannot be true at the same time.
-God is bad. (Presupposes that God does in fact exist, but she doesn't like him.)
The Bible gives an example of genocide "And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain" Book of Deuteronomy (2:34) "And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?"…" Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman …." Book of Numbers (31:15-17) Even Hitler and Stalin did not destroy completely any people, though, and killed millions of people. And Moses is a prophet of God in the Bible! Who and why do we need such a vicious and immoral god?
Even if God exists, why does he so cruel? As I said before, The Bible - a cult of death, the central idea of the Old Testament - the animal sacrifices, but the central idea of the covenant - the sacrifice of Christ.
Thank you for your responses. I shall get right to it then!
Where is the explicit logical contradiction? There is technically no logical contradiction between an all good, all powerful god existing, and evil existing. However, your impliet contradiction entails the idea that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil. However, as long as it is possible that such reasons exist, then evil and God are consistent. Even more so, how can you say there is evil in the world unless you are comparing it with some absolute ethic or law. And that overflows into the Moral Argument for God. The existence of evil proves the Christian god.
Not a disproof of God. Furthermore, why should God want to do this? There is no reason to think that given free will, there would ever be a point at which more poeple would believe. This may be the best possible world given free will in which the most people believe. Since we don't know if such is the case, such a complaint has no warrant, thus underminding the claim that the absence of such evidence is positive evidence that God does not exist.
Not a disproof of God. Besides, you were the one who said there was much evidence against God, and then you give some. However, our situation regarding such beings (teapot, Santa) does satisfy the evidence and knowledge expectations. We can and do disprove them all the time. We can know such teapot does not exist because it wasn't put there by any astronauts and matter does not self-organize into teapot shapes.
This question treats God as though he were two rather than one. But since he is only one, it makes no sense to ask if he is stronger than himself. It is a pseudo-question, in that it proves nothing about God because the question is incoherent. Omnipotence has to do with God having all the power to do that which power can do. Since power cannot do something illogical, then such a question is not a problem.
No contradiction. Just because God may not need to do anything, doesn't mean he can't. Of course he does not need to, but there may be reasons he wants to.
I could use the same argument to prove that God exists, inductively. Since 99% of people who have lived since the dawn of time believed in a god, inductively, it is quite likely he exists. Such an argument is only an argument from popularity, which fails.
No proof against God. Just because there are differences, does not mean there is NO right way. This happens in science every day. There were many theories about which planetary objects revolve around what. But just because there were many conflicting theories, it would be foolish to conclude that there exists no right theory.
Straw man and category mistake. The KCA does not say that everything needs a creator, only that that which begins must need a cause. God did not begin. It is silly to ask what caused an uncause being. Do we blame the number 3 for not smelling?
ani_mess forfeited this round.
Oh sad. I had hoped to continue one more round. If you do come back Ani, I did enjoy it while it lasted. Thanks for taking the time you did!
To our voters, please remember to vote based on the arguments given. I did respond to Con's arguments. Con did not respond to my arguments. And she forfeited, sadly.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wierdman 5 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:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: pro obviously presented a superior case and was more active. conduct goes to pro for activity, argument goes to pro for a superior case.
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.