The Instigator
Truth_seeker
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
LaL36
Con (against)
Tied
0 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 483 times Debate No: 27701
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Truth_seeker

Pro

Here are my definitions
I'm using the bibles definition of God
Spirit - Entity without a body

The following arguments are used to discard God existing as invalid
1. If God exists, there would be evidence, since there isn't, he isn't real
2. God wants to stop Good because he is good, since there is evil; he either lacks the power or chooses not to, but ultimately, this is a contradiction to his character, therefore he doesn't exist
3. There are contradictions in the bible, therefore God doesn't exist because his word is flawed

Before we take time and analyze these arguments, lets examine the scientific method. What does it observe? The natural world, so it can only observe that which is observable. What are one of its biggest flaws? The restriction to the mind of the scientist.

Now, consider the arguments carefully 1) There is no evidence because the natural world is all that's observable with physical senses, so you can't disprove the existence of spirits with the natural or otherwise, you are being biased. Not only that, but you haven't observed things in the future, does that mean they don't exist? of course not.

2) Gods ultimate will is to stop evil, but there is a process in doing that which is allowing evil in order for Good to be shown to be stronger. If you study the book of Job more carefully, you will find one answer on why evil happens in the world. Ultimately, this is no way disproves his existence, its simply a misunderstanding of his will.

3) Many of the supposed contradictions are not contradictions at all, simply a misunderstanding of the context and language of scripture. Once you take a verse out of context, not only is that manipulation, its misinterpretation.

Because of these points, these arguments for disproving God are invalid.
LaL36

Con

Sorry only read the first part of your debate and assumed you were arguing that G-d doesn't exist. I apologize
Debate Round No. 1
Truth_seeker

Pro

Truth_seeker forfeited this round.
LaL36

Con

Once again I apologize for ruining the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
Truth_seeker

Pro

Truth_seeker forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Truth_seeker

Pro

Truth_seeker forfeited this round.
LaL36

Con

G-d exists
Debate Round No. 4
Truth_seeker

Pro

Truth_seeker forfeited this round.
LaL36

Con

No one vote please sorry
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Cumulative genetic change over generations, happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it. Ask a serious science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theo
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
No Human can prove or disprove a slave supporting sexist or leprechauns are responsible for cells with a nucleus.

Science doesnt claim to know weverything. Thats ok, you dont need to know everything to know the theory of gravity is real.

The teory of evolution is fact as well. Genetic change over generations happens, just like gravity :)

Denying evolution is no more intelligent than denying water is 2 parts hydrogen one part oxygen :)

This is 2012, Darwins Theory has been scrutinised since 1859! We have gone above and beyond anything Darwin imagined since the discovery of DNA, all genetics, embryology, fractal geometry, quantum sciences, now since 2002, we have completely mapped the human genome.

We dont even need fossils to prove evolution. Genetic change over generations happens, and Genetic studies and DNA, neither of which Darwin or Einstein knew about, has all the evidence we need :)
No votes have been placed for this debate.