The Instigator
loveu157
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
RiskTaker
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Does god exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
RiskTaker
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 612 times Debate No: 51394
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

loveu157

Con

Please use the first round to formulate your argument.
please remain respectful.
RiskTaker

Pro

A'ight...

My first argument is that a universe with no creator makes no sense.

I'll bring up more in round 2 when you specify which god of which religion you are referring to.


Basically, if nothing created the universe, it doesn't make sense that it exists or has an origin of any kind. If it has no origin then it isn't really real and then it must be a simulated reality. If it is a simulated reality there must be some superior force programming and setting up the code of logic on which this universe runs. therefore, this can be considered to be the god.
Debate Round No. 1
loveu157

Con

You start out by saying a universe with no creator makes no sense. This is false. You are stating opinion without any scientific evidence or proof on that matter.

The creation of a universe started with rapid inflation or what is referred to as a big bang. This was not an explosion but the time when our entire universe started to expand and each thing moved part from each other. Proof was discovered pretty recently when a team discovered gravitational waves left from rapid inflation.

I am talking about gods in general.

Science can be used to prove all the false things within religion and and any groups bible. You are essentially cherry picking the parts of the religion that you want and throwing away the rest. You have given no evidence within this first round and only gave a poorly developed theory.

I respect your right to believe in god but I believe that you are wrong.

source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
RiskTaker

Pro

Okay, let me try an unconventional approach to this debate since I think the standard lines of attack are probably going to be countered by con with stereotypical atheistic logic.

I want us to take the atheist universe as true. The one where time is an illusion(http://everythingforever.com...), where things are sometimes not what they appear to be, or at two places at once (http://curiosity.discovery.com...), where logic is only based on the evidence we gain and retain in our physical, subjective brains and interpret with our minds of limited capacity to conclude what we assume to be true. I want this universe to be the one we consider true. One that sprang into existence from a big bang(http://www.bbc.co.uk...) and then expanded into the nothingness that was already outside of it, somehow, and will eternally expand to an infinitely large amount.(http://skyserver.sdss.org...)

This atheistic universe being true is all well and good until we begin asking ourselves some questions regarding the rationale behind believing in it.

See, we can explain why the atoms collide but we can't explain the causative agent of their collision, let alone their very existence. In the atheist world things come in and out of existence all the time, inexplicably and for no apparent reason. The universe itself came from a big bang that involved matter and energy from no stated origin. So this 'universe' is no more, or less, logically flawed than god. Just like god, it has no origin, just like god it is infinitely large and, just like god, it is the one thing that even the most rational of men cannot explain away.

So, this leaves us with only one question: If the universe and god are both inexplicable in their true origin and source of power then what makes the universe more real than god?

The answer is simple. the universe is more believable to the common man because god is intangible. One can picture the universe as a black abyss with stars and planets, one can't truly picture god because the real god has no physical form, it invented the entire concept of physics altogether. Such a being may be as logically valid as the universe itself but is less believable due to none of the five senses being able to process it, only the emotional response and intellectual concept of an ultimately powerful entity are what god can be experienced through.

In essence, the way one can imagine god is as the first thing. The original entity. God is the necessary puzzle piece required to fill in the gap of logic as to what made the physical material required for the big bang and what is causing things to move and interact in the first place. Without god, all that makes sense is that things are as they are but they have no meaning, no significance and no value. Not even you, or your life, matter to anyone else that can appreciate you forever like god can. God will be there, and god will know you for what you truly are, will be and were. God is a psychological cure to loneliness, but also a psychological catalyst for the brainwashing of terrorists.

God is merely a psychological necessity for an emotional being that is capable of reasoning to cope with a meaningless and mundane universe. After all, we might as well kill ourselves if everything is only temporary and an ultimate waste of time. Many humans require god to remain sane.

How do you know anything is real? All the science that you propose to back atheism up may all be base don illusions and lies and fiction-based literature in the form of plagiarised scientific results. In the end, nothing can be truly known to be real, not even you or me. All we can do is see what is necessary to be true for us to remain sane and logically analyse the world as well as cop with the meaninglessness of life.

Now, Con, please tell me why god is any less real than the very page on which this debate is on. Tell me how you know anything exists at all. I'm betting on you saying because evidence leads you to believe it. Well, the evidence has a loophole in its origin and thus requires a divine intervention of some kind to have gotten it all going. Otherwise, we might as well say this debate isn't real and forfeit it since the origin of the matter that comprises of uncreated atoms is uknown.
Debate Round No. 2
loveu157

Con

I would like to start by saying that you had a commeling argument and it was an interesting point of veiw. However you failed to provide any physical evidence of any claim that you asserted. you have stated religious theroy through all for your argument. You attemt to counter my argument by giving a very one sided argument.

You call my logic sterotypical. I have provided reliable sources to my claims and I have cited them correctly.

You claim that God fills the gap within the idea of creation. This is illogical. Just becuase you dont know something does nto mean that you have to make something up as an explaination. YOu may never be able to know why somethign is there but you can prove that it is there. Such as atoms. We may never know why Atoms exist but we know what they do.

It is not yet known what caused the big bang but we do have many possibel explaintiosn that can be considerd due to proof in science.

The things in our life may not be real that is correct. I can not prove any of that. However. The scientific advancement that shows how the bible is wrong is way more credible then a thousand year old cherry picked book. How do you know that the bible is real.
RiskTaker

Pro

"I would like to start by saying that you had a commeling argument"

Thank you.



"However you failed to provide any physical evidence of any claim that you asserted."

The claim that I asserted required no physical evidence. It was logically reasoned to be the only plausible truth.



"You have stated religious theroy through all for your argument."

No, I have actually not mentioned any religious theory at all. Only metaphysics.



"You attemt to counter my argument by giving a very one sided argument."

Nope, I appreciated the atheist viewpoint and fully explained the loophole it has.



"You call my logic sterotypical. I have provided reliable sources to my claims and I have cited them correctly."

Sources do not determine the validity of your logic and I provide sources too.

"YOu may never be able to know why somethign is there but you can prove that it is there. Such as atoms"

We still don't know if atoms truly exist, it's merely the most plausible epxlanation to date.


"We may never know why Atoms exist but we know what they do."

Same goes for god.

"It is not yet known what caused the big bang but we do have many possibel explaintiosn that can be considerd due to proof in science"

All the proof has a glaring loophole in the origin or the matter and enrgy that was required for the big bang.

What made hydrogen? Where did it come from? If it came from nothing how do we know what really does and doesn't exist? what if God is merely something that sprang from nothingness? Why is god not just as plausible based on the loophole in the origin of matter?

"The things in our life may not be real that is correct. I can not prove any of that. However. The scientific advancement that shows how the bible is wrong is way more credible then a thousand year old cherry picked book. How do you know that the bible is real."

I know that the Bible is real because I went to local bookstore and found it. I do not need to prove it to be true as you agreed that we are debating the general concept of a god, not the Christian God.

Good game. Well played.

At the end of the day, I've proved that nothing can be truly known to be real, and hence to exist any more or less than the intangible god which we are debating over. I then proved the logical necessity for a creator of some kind as self-perpetuating matter and energy makes no sense and my opponent did not epxlain this and instead chose to ignore it in his closing statement.

Thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
True HyugaNeji45: Evolution is not even predictable, so the God could not be omniscient as it set in progress a process (Evolution) that the outcome cannot be known.

Which makes it far more probable that Evolution started all by itself.
Posted by HyugaNeji45 2 years ago
HyugaNeji45
I don't wish to take a side here, since I'd much rather see what other people have to say before I form my own opinion, but this is a thought that keeps nagging at me in the back of my mind. God (I'm using the Christian God as reference) is portrayed to be this omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being who is perfect in every way. However, a question arises: why would this all-powerful, all-knowing God, in his divine glory, create evolution-- a horribly inefficient and dysfunctional process? Take humans, for example. Our esophagus and our pharynx are so dangerously close together that we can choke to death with relative ease. Our appendix (vermiform) is a similar matter; it has no significant function, yet it can develop tumors and can lead to appendicitis. In plain words, I just don't get it.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
When somebody makes assertions that they know voters will be reading they need to back those assertions up with evidence for voters to accept.
Pro makes assertions that Atheists think nothing existed before the Big Bang, so knowledgeable Atheists reading this debate would automatically put a strike against Pro as I had to, as Pro did not show evidence for this incorrect assertion in the sources.
If evidence was shown for this then the voters would have to accept it as valid within the debate, otherwise it would be a point that makes their argument unconvincing.
To make a convincing argument, evidence must be shown to back up assertions and assumptions made, otherwise the voter may not be convinced as I was not convinced at all by Pro's arguments.
If evidence for the assertions was produced, then I would be more convinced that Pro had valid grounds to make his assertions.

I believe validating assertions in a debate is very important, as, even if they are extremely wrong ( as were Pro's assertions) or absolutely stupid, is important, because then regardless of their wrongness, or stupidity, the validation via sources makes them valid within the debate.

A debater should be able to get away with extreme stupidity and errors if they supply something to back it up!
Otherwise they are open to being kicked for those unsupported statements in the votes.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Pro opens with an Assertion where pro didn't explain the logic behind it, is it deductive.
Strong Assertions can only be made from Deductive reasoning, thus pro must be working from a Verified initial premise for the assertion to be true.
I doubt if there can ever be such a verifiable, absolutely truthful premise for that assertion.
" if nothing created the universe, it doesn't make sense that it exists or has an origin of any kind. "

@ HyugaNeji, that was some falling out they had! Wow!
Posted by HyugaNeji45 2 years ago
HyugaNeji45
Con, I fully respect your debate, and support it, for that matter; however, you should try to refrain from using wikipedia as a source of information, as articles on the website have been changed and edited by many different people, so much so that some have lost their original meanings and are chock-full of fallacies. I'm not saying the article you used in particular was incorrect, but after seeing an article stating that Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin were actually homosexual lovers, I deemed wikipedia a non-credible source; though that's just me, I guess.
Posted by hibyedb 2 years ago
hibyedb
God cannot have a creator, that defiles the enmity of God. However, what created the big bang?
Posted by RiskTaker 2 years ago
RiskTaker
You will understand everything when the debate continues. :)
Posted by lightingbolt50 2 years ago
lightingbolt50
Hey pro, since nothing can exist without a creator, what the hell created your god? If your gonna use that argument can't we?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
loveu157RiskTakerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a stronger arguments with more scientific detail and far greater refutations.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
loveu157RiskTakerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were more rational than Pro's, for example Pro stated: "we can explain why the atoms collide but we can't explain the causative agent of their collision," which is circular in that the Explanation of why they collide is the causative agent". The collided because they were fired from the LHC, the LHC is the causative agent. Con also made the age old misconception that Atheists and science assumes nothing existed prior to the Big Bang, which is indeed False, Science has always assumed something existed prior to the Big Bang, but was honest enough to say it did not know, instead of trying to assert that it knows what existed prior to the Big Bang as Theists do. Atheists are more Honest there as they admit not knowing what existed prior to the Big Bang instead of blindly asserting a God of the Gaps as an explanation. Con had more sources, but, those sources did not support the existence of a creator, in fact some of the statements within those sources supported Pro.
Vote Placed by Dan4reason 2 years ago
Dan4reason
loveu157RiskTakerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The biggest reason I voted pro is that most of his arguments went unchallenged. The argument that you can't prove anything exists, or that life only has meaning with God wasn't convincingly challenged. The best argument Con threw out there was that Pro was using God of the Gaps. I would have accepted this as a refutation but it was not given in enough detail to fully refute what Pro was saying. Also Con never convincingly showed that a naturalistic explanation is better.