The Instigator
MostHonestBoyEver
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
yoshidino
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

Does God exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
yoshidino
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 395 times Debate No: 64939
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

MostHonestBoyEver

Con

Before we knew the cause of the earthquakes, we believed that god caused earthquakes in order to punish the humankind for its wrongs or maybe some other myth. But then we discovered that earthquakes were caused by shifting of tectonic plates beneath the earth's crust. This comes with proof. Proof given by scientists. No proof is or was available for the opinion that God causes earthquakes. Same way, you have no proof for your opinion for the fact that god exists and therefore you are wrong. Many people believe that God is real but common belief doesn't make the belief true.
yoshidino

Pro

"you have no proof for your opinion for the fact that god exists and therefore you are wrong." That is ridiculous. The possession of proof does not make something right or wrong. A fact is a fact whether you have proof or not. I have personal undeniable proof of God, but that doesn't help you... I know this. But it is like two men sitting in a house looking out the window. The one says to the other, "the wind is moving the trees." The other replies and says he doesn't believe the wind is moving the trees and asks the other for proof. He can not prove wind is real to the other, because it is simply something you must feel for yourself. All he can do is explain it with logic, based on what they both know about trees. Because they know that trees do not move by their own volition, it is logical to say that something invisible must be moving the tree. To decide wind isn't real simply because you don't want to believe in it and you have no proof is illogical. Likewise, to deny the existence of a God is also illogical. The evolution theory fails miserably because it is wrong. And don't tell me that it is right without giving examples of undeniable proof of it; playing by your own rules.
Debate Round No. 1
MostHonestBoyEver

Con

The theory of 'GOD' was created so that no one does anything wrong. It was created so that there was this superpower that was everywhere and could see everything that everyone was doing.
As for the matter of proof, scientists have proof. You have no proof about some superpower existing. 'GOD' is simply a term given to the unknown or what that is not discovered. Something strange happens, and people attach a myth or a story to it and relate it to god. Frankly, I find it a little illogical. With theories of God, come theories of luck and other improbable things. These are only ways to make someone else responsible for the mistake you make. People say- 'God wanted it that way so it happened.' WOW! People don't want to take responsibility for any of their mistakes.
Now, let's for a moment assume that GOD exists. Would you please answer what he does? They say god created life. Scientists have proof that says the first cells were formed out of inorganic matter with NO superpower involved.
Also, you say that 'a fact is a fact whether you have proof or not'. This might be new for you but actually a sentence or opinion is made a fact because of some proof. With no proof, it stays an OPINION. The literal meaning of a fact is- 'Something that is proved true.' However I do not want to change the topic as our debate is on existence of GOD.
You say that the evolution theory failed miserably, how exactly do you know that?
yoshidino

Pro

"Scientists have proof"
"Scientists have proof"
"Scientists have proof"
So many time atheists say this but never give an example of this proof. Please provide me with an example or don't say it.
Scientists do not have proof that life formed from inorganic matter. If you think they do, explain this proof to me. I guarantee that this is a false statement and no proof exists whatsoever. prove me wrong...
"What does God do?" He is in control of every kingdom on earth. Even the evil ones according to the scriptures. He raises evil kingdoms up to show his mighty power in judgment on them. Of course he works with their already rebellious heart achieved by his own choice to raise him up as an evil leader. And what does God do for us his children and servants? He fills us up with his holy spirit to comfort us, gives us love, peace, and joy unspeakable. He is our all in all. He works in our hearts to make us better. Our God has much at work. These are just a very few things explained simply.
When I say fact is fact, I simply mean that something is either true or its not regardless of lack of proof. If I'm in a house and I say there is someone just on the other side of that door, this statement is either true or false, regardless of what proof I have of it. No opinions, just true or false. Understand?
How exactly do I know that the evolution theory failed miserably? Well let me get started:
Since the "big bang" pairs with "evolution" as the beginning of evolution, I will Start with that. Understand that when a spinning object breaks apart in a friction-less environment, all the particles will spin in the same direction. This is called the conservation of angular momentum. If the big bang theory is true, explain to me why Venus, Uranus, and possibly Pluto spin backwards? Also, 6 of the 63 moons spin backwards. Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions. Why?
The theory says that compact energy caused the spec to explode... Where did the energy and the spec come from? Making matter smaller does not get rid of the "how did it come to be?" problem.
The rock layers shatter the evolution theory easy. The sediment layers could not have taken millions of years to form. Standing petrified trees are found all over within these rock layers, connecting them all. When a tree dies it falls around here. How long does a dead tree stand where you live? The rock layers show that all the sediment formed within the standing lifetime of all these trees. It is easily scientifically proven that all these layers would easily form under the conditions of a world wide flood in about 20 minutes. this is done just by placing the different sediment in a container of water and watching them sort themselves automatically. So if there was a big flood, it would make sense that the trees are still standing because the sediments would just quickly form around them. Also within these rock layers are found all over fossils of animals petrified frozen in the "scared" position. Animals don't just die in the "scared" position. What were they ALL afraid of when they died?? The flood explains it all. There was found a petrified closed clam shell (clams open when they die) at the top of Mount Everest. How did that get up there, and why did it die closed? It must have died VERY quickly. Scientists claim mutation as the means of evolution. Give me one example of a positive mutation. all we have is negative, including bacteria. Although some bacteria may become immune to a chemical, this is not caused by positive, but negative mutation. The bacteria become immune when they lose the part that the chemical would latch on to. Although the bacteria is spared of the chemical due to the missing part, it is still inferior to the other bacteria that still have the part. It's not gaining, It's losing. It's like if the cops showed up to a party and began handcuffing people, but there is one there with no hands. The one with no hands will not get cuffed, but he is still inferior to the other people as he is missing something beneficial that the others have. There is no way for genetic information to increase as it moves down the gene pool. everything is at constant decay, second law of thermodynamics. this contradicts the "evolution" process. Things are not getting better, they're getting worse. No scientist has been able, with all their technology to create life from non life. Fossil records show no sign of evolution. prove me wrong with example. Carbon dating does not work and can not be used to date anything. Carbon dating is done by measuring the remaining C14 in a decaying fossil in which the animal possessed that ate plants that absorb C14 from the atmosphere. This C14 is very radioactive and decays quickly. Half of it decays every 5,750 years. You can measure rate of decay and how much is left, but without knowing exactly how much it had in the first place you can not know how long it has been decaying. This being said, I'll give a couple of examples of carbon dating failures: In 1949, the lower leg of a mammoth was carbon dated 15,380 RCY (radio carbon years) while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY. In 1963, living mollusk's shells carbon dated as being 2,300 years old. 1971, a freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago. Shells from living snails were carbon dated 27,000 years old in 1984. Just a couple of examples. It is proven many times not to work.
Here is just a little bit more science and logic that supports creation and shatters evolution:
First of all I would like to validate the Scriptures as a trust worthy reference to history:
For one, we have very much manuscript evidence that prove to be unaltered and unchanged. We have two main manuscripts of the Old Covenant writings. The one called the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation from the ancient Hebrew manuscripts that we no longer have, and the other is The Aramaic Tanak (Old covenant). We have many ancient manuscripts of both that match each other Probably about 95% word for word. The New Covenant holds even more evidence. We have 365 manuscripts written in Aramaic (called the Peshitta) that date back to the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries that all match each other word for word letter for letter 99.9% all the way through. This shows clear proof of preservation of these writings. This shows that, apart from how unbelievable an event may seem, it is more trust worthy than the American and world history books of today which everyone regards as fact. I know there are ways to know that the american and world history stories are relatively true. I also know of evidence that shows true many stories written in the scriptures. I will elaborate on them next round.
You may know of many passages in the Scriptures that seem to contradict. I would like to hear a couple, because I see this happen too often due to either miss translation or miss interpretation of the Scriptures.
Now touching on the things that are hard to believe, or deemed impossible:
Many say that miracles that are written in the Scriptures didn't happen based on impossibility under the laws of physics. Let me ask, how did the universe BEGIN? Newton's first law states: "An object that is at rest will stay at rest unless an external force acts upon it, and an object that is in motion will not change its velocity unless an external force acts upon it."http://en.wikipedia.org.........'s_laws_of_motion
Antoine Lavoisier's law of conservation of mass or principle of mass conservation states that mass can neither be created nor destroyed. http://en.wikipedia.org.......... Within these two laws of physics alone it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe to simply "come to be" out of absolutely nothing. But we know for sure that is did, somehow; and "how" is the debate. Likewise, as the BEGINNING of the universe is impossible and yet we do not deny the existence of it, we also must not deny the existence of the happenings of the miracles in the Scriptures strictly on impossibility. Rather, we investigate the probability if the God that did things deemed impossible under laws of physics in the Scriptures, Is the same God that did the impossible thing of CREATING the universe. You may ask, "what proof do you have that it had to be a God that did the impossible?" My answer: What or who ever did this thing impossible, had to be something or someone that was able to operate outside of the laws of the universe, being that the universe did not exist. something or someone this powerful, whether animate or inanimate has to be considered a God. And if done alone, the only God.
So now the question is, animate or inanimate? First of all let us define animate and inanimate.
Animate: adjective-
1. alive, possessing life
2. of or relating to animal life
3. able to move voluntarily
http://dictionary.reference.com.........
Inanimate: adjective-
1. not alive, especially in the manner of animals and humans
2. showing no signs of life, lifeless
From Google translate.

Think of this.. Can a rock DO anything by itself? how about a plant? water? a tree? no, because none possess life. What about a cat? dog? lion? human? The answer is yes to all, because all possess live, or are living. So we see that it is not an inanimate god that can DO something as impossible as CREATE the universe, or let alone be a god at all, But It has to be an animate God or, living God, that brought all things into existence. (ps. a tree or plant is not living based on the definition of "animate")

So recapping, we see that all of creation demands there to be an intelligent and living creator that operates outside the laws of physics. And if this is so, it would be no big thing for any of the miracles of the Scriptures to happen.

And don't try quantum mechanics on me. quantum mechanics is full of theories, ideas and fun thoughts made by atheist scientists trying to disprove the existence of God. No unproven theory can work as a proper rebuttal. Give me facts and evidence.
Debate Round No. 2
MostHonestBoyEver

Con

MostHonestBoyEver forfeited this round.
yoshidino

Pro

I forward my argument to this round. Perhaps Con wasn't able to respond in time. Rebuttal please?
Debate Round No. 3
MostHonestBoyEver

Con

MostHonestBoyEver forfeited this round.
yoshidino

Pro

Ok, maybe this isn't fare?? I guess he is only 13.
Debate Round No. 4
MostHonestBoyEver

Con

MostHonestBoyEver forfeited this round.
yoshidino

Pro

God is real.... He Loves you deeply and is heartbroken that you don't want to believe in him. His existence is so obvious, and yes, logical. He can forgive you of your sins and give you life. He wants to fill you with joy, peace and love. He took the punishment so you wouldn't have to. Surrender your life to him, and he will give you purpose on this earth. Just get on your knees and say, "Y'shua, you are my lord. I serve you all the days of my life."
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
yoshidino
I will not be able to get to my computer till probably Sunday night, so I'm not forfeiting, I just may not be able to get back in time. I will get back at it as soon as I can.
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
yoshidino
I have fully covered every vague point that he has made. Notice my quotations? That is "addressing" something he said...
Posted by ELDRITCH 2 years ago
ELDRITCH
Both of you are completely failing to address anything the other says.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
MostHonestBoyEveryoshidinoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
MostHonestBoyEveryoshidinoTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
MostHonestBoyEveryoshidinoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to con.