Does God exist?
Debate Rounds (4)
I am arguing that a God does not exist and that through common sense, logic, and scientific reasoning, one should easily deduce that the belief in a God is illogical and that the existence of God is very unlikely.
-First Round for acceptance only
-Prove your argument(s) with credible sources
To start off, the aforementioned tools to determine whether one should believe in a God would be through common sense, logic, and scientific reasoning. For each one, I will show you how believing in the existence of God is irrational.
The definition of God is as follows:
"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions"
How could God be originator and ruler of the universe when our planet it 4.54 billion years old and some of the oldest religious texts come from merely 5,000 years ago. Furthermore, there are thousands and thousands of Gods or deities throughout all religion. Rather than prove how the belief of said deities is illogical, one can easier point out the tremendous lack of evidence behind any Gods or deities. Some may say that the evidence of God lies in the Bible. Well... the only testament to the existence of God would come from the Bible. However, the Bible is full of contradictions, making it unreliable. For example, within the story of John, Jesus is said to be equal to God: "John 10:30: I and my Father are one."
Then within the same story, it is said:
"John 14:28: Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."
Clearly the Bible should not be used as a testament to God's existence because it is unreliable and indecisive. If God is perfect, then wouldn't he make sure that the word of God, or the Bible, would be perfect as well? Additionally, quoting Dr. Bart Ehrman, professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill:
"In the entire first Christian century, Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher, or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references!"
Would not a miracle such as Jesus Christ be told from person to person and be transcribed by historians from all around? Moreover, if God was omniscient and omnipotent, wouldn't he make his existence make it known to all? For many of the stories in the Bible we can use common sense to determine that these things did not happen and could not possibly happen. Take, for example, the story of Noah. Noah was instructed by God to take:
(Genesis 6:19-20) - "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."
To date, science has identified over 2 millions species of animals. Does it logically make sense that one could take 2 of each species of animal and fit them on an arc? No.
Logic and common sense sort of go hand in hand so this argument will sort of coincide with some of my other arguments. According to the Bible, the world was created in 6 days and on the 7th day God rested. Where do the dinosaurs come in at all in this fable? There is physical evidence to the prehistoric dinosaurs as well as scientific evidence that the Earth is around 4.54 billion years old. These together disprove 2 major components in creation theory. We also know that the first homo sapiens, evolving from hominids, were walking the Earth approximately 200,000 years ago. However, the Bible tells tales of Adam and Eve, unsupported by modern science. If there was a God that existed, his word through the Bible should align with history and scientific evidence. However, the biggest flaw in creation theory is the incredible lack of evidence to support it. With no concrete evidence pointing to a God, one should logically assume that there is no God.
The most compelling argument that refutes the existence of God is the scientific evidence for notions that do not support the existence of a deity or God and/or are contrary to the Bible. Primarily, the first law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only change forms. This disproves the initial creation of Earth by a God and supports the theory of the Big Bang, which also has a great amount of evidence supporting it. The burden of evidence lies on the one attempting to prove something exists or is true. The lack of any concrete evidence at all to support the existence of God is plenty to repudiate the existence of God.
Sorry it took so long, I have a lot of things to do in my day to day life and I sort of did this last minute. I tried to keep this first round brief that we have more to discuss in the rounds to come and I look forward to reading your rebuttal.
Let me clarify this seemingly paradoxal position.
Today, in light of the great advances in science humankind as a whole has experienced, belief in any form of supernatural entity " though it isn"t " should be considered dubious, and, in most current apologetic explanations which try to incorporate them; illogical or fallacious. However the belief in a God itself, is not that illogical when looking at the circumstances in which organized religion emerged during the bronze age. The people living at the time made their own tools, built their own houses and they themselves formed the clay from which they got their earthenware. It is in a way logical, or at least understandable, that they assumed that if they themselves and the nature surrounding them were also created by someone or something and that this entity controlled much of the world"s features that humans could, not yet, explain such as earthquakes, lightning, diseases, flooding and more philosophical concepts such as death, the origin of morality and the problem of evil. Nevertheless, though their beliefs might have had positive effects at the time, they were (in all probability) ultimately wrong. There is in all likelihood no God, or indeed any supernatural being involved in our lives or the creation of our universe.
However, this does not mean that a belief in God is irrational or unreasonable nor that "God" does not exist. It all depends on the definition of reason, rational decisions and the nature of existence. I will argue that in practice there is a God even though he (or she) does not exist in a tangible way and that adhering to his existence isn"t by definition irrational, even in current times. Because even if there is no God (which I think is true) the fact that currently and certainly historically an enormous amount of people adhere(d) to the belief in the Abrahamic God and the sheer monumental impact this has had on their descendant cultures, "God" has become a real concept in many cases. The belief in God has left and continues to influence tremendous aspects of (modern) society, being evident in architecture, language, art and politics to name a few. More extremely, in many Middle Eastern societies, to make offending remarks involving God is to effectively sign your own death sentence. The fact that there is no God, does not make the noose around this "offenders" neck less tight nor his or her death less painful. In respect to his own life, it would have been very rational for him to have remained silent concerning God, even though in regard to God himself his remark was meaningless.
To equate God to the status of the Easter bunny (both being equally imagined) is to ignore the fact that in spite of being imaginary, God has profoundly influenced, indeed often determined, the lives of billions of people and that, by extension, the influence exerted by believers on the life of others, whether believers themselves or not. In other words, God exists and is very real in many respects; even though in a material sense it is a mere idea.
bradly1029 forfeited this round.
bradly1029 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.