The Instigator
ajttja
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mr.Kal
Pro (for)
Winning
24 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 4 votes the winner is...
Mr.Kal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/4/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 971 times Debate No: 69412
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (38)
Votes (4)

 

ajttja

Con

Round 1: Acceptance and brief explanation of your position
Round 2: Proof
Round 3: Rebuttal plus more proof
Round 4: Final statements and summary

My position is that god does not exist. I am not anti-god, I just search for the truth. If your argument is extremely convincing then I will gladly become religious. But for now, all facts I have seen make me see that the concept of god is not logical and has no proven evidence. I challenge you to prove me wrong.
Mr.Kal

Pro

Thanks for the debate.
I am personally not a religious individual - but the concept of "god" intrigues me.
So I will be batting against my self in this debate.

Opening statement:
God and religion are two completely separate entities.
Religion is a man made societal structure used to create uniformity throughout a population to create a culture around the concept of god. It is more of a philosophical work with guide lines to life and explanations to events in life. Each religion has its own perception of god and molds its shape based on their own cultural beliefs.
I will not be arguing it from a singular religious view point.

I will be arguing the concept of "God" from a more generalized perspective which shares a common background between all faiths; attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere).

When religion was made by man - it was made to help explain the mysteries of life. It was a philosophical science based on observations of things that happened around them. To make things interesting they placed these observations in story form, or simple understanding of cause and effect. This allowed culture to form and people to unite under a banner more general than simply family.This in turn allowed larger populations to have a common bond, creating society. With that said the religious perception of god is merely a philosophical mold of a higher concept which they have yet to fully understand. But it is through these simple observations there were able to make a generalized view point - albeit a story form version.

God is something with unlimited power, infinite knowledge, and is everywhere. Something which fills these 3 things is the fabric of reality it self. So I will make my argument that god is not an entity, a celestial being, but the very nature and soul of the universe it self.
Debate Round No. 1
ajttja

Con

ajttja forfeited this round.
Mr.Kal

Pro

Courtesy Extension
Debate Round No. 2
ajttja

Con

ajttja forfeited this round.
Mr.Kal

Pro

Throughout history religion from the neolithic period to modern day religion has consistently showed a trend of explaining natural phenomenon - past and future predictions - as well as metaphysical concepts through symbolic stories. From ancient spirit worship to explain rocks the movement of the sun , rain;
http://en.wikipedia.org...
To Ancient Greece where Zeus threw thunderbolts, or The Chinese Dragons jumped in the clouds for thunder, or even Shiva's ( more specifically Nataraja) causing destruction of the universe which is tired from growing. Religion was simply a method of explanation of the world around them when no science was capable at that time of doing so.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.pantheon.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Now one may argue that there is a difference between mythology and religion. But at period of time - they believed this to be reality. Both mythology and religion defined culture, used symbolism to explain various events, told about morality.
The only reason mythology is being pushed away is to distance religion from less believable tales. Even though they are brother and sister - fallacies of the human mind.

This trend of religion in symbolic nature has been well documented throughout history. In order for religion to survive and continue to exploit the lesser minds they had to recreate the stories in such a way to allow partial plausibility with much more difficulty to disprove. Yet maintaining its original symbolic nature, hence the birth of modern day religions.

With that all said though the topic is about "God" - if the trend of religion in a symbolic sense can be extrapolated. God quoted it self is pure symbolic nature of something else which again they don't understand. An entity which created everything and has the ability to destroy everything. . There is only one reference which would fit all such criteria and that is the Universe it self. The expansion of the universe allowed the creation of all matter. As the universe expanded the entropy in the system decreased allowing energy to coalesce and create solid matter. This through random chaotic movements eventually lead to life. If the universe ever began contracting this would increase entropy in the system causing destruction of everything as we know it. It would be impossible to stop such a contraction from occurring hence being the ultimate entity of unlimited power ( Or more scientifically, the ultimate entity with the maximum attainable power - after all you cannot have more energy than the system it self. Nor can you create more energy. ).
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Not only does this fit within the religious concepts - but also in the scientific concept. Which would mean the religious symbolic representation of god - is more than likely the universe it self - a provable, definable, and semi-predicable reality unlike a celestial being which has been consistently dis-proven over the ages - resulting in the formation of new religions.
Debate Round No. 3
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rextr05 1 year ago
rextr05
Not really talking about religion as much as trusting historical data here as you discount some data cuz the exact verbiage differs as my example shows is common with most if not all accounting of facts.

& I do not, by any stretch of the imagination, seek to prove God's existence cuz, as I stated emphatically b4, God/Jesus had intentionally made sure we only chose to believe, not cuz of undeniable facts, but thru faith. & since we already went thru what faith is in detail, we know that faith is not something that is followed blindly. We have some evidence, please refer to past 'evidence' comments by me in this thread, that we use to trust our faith in whatever it is is sound ....... for us. & what is evidence for one, is not going to necessarily be evidence for faith in something as trusting evidence for the other ........... but never blind. Blind faith is jumping off a cliff that you have no idea from any source of that cliff's details. The person just blindly jumps. No one follows God, or love, or loyalty without some sort of evidence for faith to follow or trust whatever it is.

I must apologize for being so blunt with my previous comment. Hopefully you had seen the point I was trying to make, & my frustration. Ya see, I had to take some English courses recently & one of them was Argumentative English & when I see folks using faulty info or not acknowledging the other side, I sometimes let my emotions take over & tell the person ........ stuff.
Posted by Mr.Kal 1 year ago
Mr.Kal
You still seem to be confusing issues not me.
We do not believe Osiris actually helps move the sun. Hence we do not trust their documents.
We do not believe Arises moves the sun with his chariot either.
Just because it is written does not mean we believe it.

If you are claiming different perspectives are enough all religions are inherently the same. As they all talk about different things in different perspective.s Osiris and Ares do the same fundamental job. Yet no one believes these things happened, I am sure you don't either. Yet saying that is not true but this is, is just round about logic.
Posted by rextr05 1 year ago
rextr05
cont ...... Mr Kal, it's not that you have proven anything, it's just you are closed minded & argue using the same logic w/o giving credit to what other historians & scholars use as how to credit subject matter. & that's fine ....... for you. It's just not a valid process for argumentative debate. Maybe take a course or go to a source to find the 'rules' & rather than depending just on yourself, you'll maybe understand the importance of taking what others use as their argument & research it & THEN argue your side. It seems that you have made up your mind regardless of & how what others have said or their logic in their argument. That's called opinion, & boarders on browbeating, & does not qualify for a legitimate debate.
Posted by rextr05 1 year ago
rextr05
Mr. Kal, We trust what the Egyptians have said cuz we believe that they wrote it & from their writings we have ascertained their gods or spiritual strength came from Ra, etc. If that's what they believed then so be it. We have also learned many things about Egyptian history from their writings & we base much of what we know from those writings.

It seems that you have a peculiar sense of trust when it comes to trust of knowledge, especially history. I spent some time explaining the 4 gospels & why they wrote differently, altho gave the same exact message of Jesus' teachings & life. Yet you seem to want the same exact word-for-word story about Jesus' life. Look to the rest of Jesus' depiction throughout the NT ....... same exact message thru different eyes for others as well. If you just don't want to believe then that's cool for you. people don't want to believe the bible as a historical book, even tho there are more copies of if from the 1st & 2nd century by far than any other text ever found cuz it is about God I suppose. There are secular writings re Jesus & His 'movement' also from the 1st & 2nd century. Believe it or not ...... up to you.

Your, "In this case there is nothing to collaborate just a statement by 4 people that don't even match up." They don't match up? I'll use the same reference you did not pay attention to b4 that holds true to today. Different authors with 4 different audiences with 4 different perspectives. Just as 4 different artists using the same exact object, but each artist has their own past experiences of how they view & their own style of a work of art. IE, an impressionist, abstact, etc. Same object but aimed at different audiences, etc. Same with the gospels. It seems that you have closed your mind to any other way of thinking except your own by ignoring my analysis w/o refuting or giving any credit to how authors write.
cont ......
Posted by Mr.Kal 1 year ago
Mr.Kal
The answer is in your statement it self.
Do we trust what the Egyptians have said?
If we did we would have to believe in Ra - Osiris - Set - etc. and all the powers in which they claimed were possible by their gods. But the reality is we don't trust it. Or more precisely simply believe what they wrote is fact but mere story tales.

A lot of history in fact from single sources we don't trust especially the more outlandish the claims become the less we trust it. Also what matters is if the sources line up or not. If 5 sources say different things the less we trust those sources. If all the sources said the same thing - and all the sources are from different locales with no personal agenda the more its trusted.

The reasons we know the Egyptians existed is not by what they wrote. But the fact we found them. We know about mummification because we found the actual mummies and the jar with the various organs. Or in other words verifiable evidence based on the statements provided. No one blindly trusts in science we collaborate to insure the accuracy of the statement.

In this case there is nothing to collaborate just a statement by 4 people that don't even match up.
Posted by rextr05 1 year ago
rextr05
Mr Kal, Much of history is not written my the involved characters, it's 3rd parties, yet we trust the content. & even tho the stories tell of different accounts & events of Jesus' life, the message is exactly the same, love & forgiveness. If you want to tell me that cuz the exact person doesn't say the exact phrase & words, hardly anything of what we read can be trusted. So, if that's your only argument, I discount it as we would have to discount any other historical account of ........ anyone. Do you think any Pharaoh wrote his own accounting? Come on man, that's a poor excuse to use when that's the manner in which ever person in history is remembered ......... a 3rd party writer.
Posted by Mr.Kal 1 year ago
Mr.Kal
Yet the crux of the problem is the bible was not written by Jesus. It was written as you so aptly put it, 4 different individuals, in 4 different perspectives, for 4 different people. So this entire time you have never read anything by "Jesus" him self. Simply what 4 people have said, he said. You have just entered the telephone game.

You claim Jesus tells you to have faith. No that is wrong. The 4 people claim he said to have faith. You see where the problem is starting to begin? This is known as circumstantial evidence or hearsay. If Jesus was the primary author it would have been different, but he wasn't. Only people who have claimed such a person existed. Which only shows history repeats it self, as it did again with Anastasia.
Posted by rextr05 1 year ago
rextr05
Mr Kal cont 3 ..... Your, "... justifications they are extremely outlandish to a point of unprovable." That is exactly the point I am making. Faith in something is a belief in something that doesn't require absolute proof. Look at love or trust or loyalty. One needs faith to trust, etc, but what their evidence is for any of them is going to be different from someone else. What you require for love is different that what I feel is. Therefore, what is 'proof' isn't what is 'proof' for another & therefore one needs faith in their belief system to love or trust or being loyal. Double agents are a good example for lack of absolute proof. If it were proof, we could write an SOP that would cover it in all instances. That's why we call it faith. So is my reality or perception of reality, which is really the same thing to me & each & everyone of us, any more or less true reality? Things that can be undeniably proven, such as we diffuse oxygen & CO2 in the capillaries of our lungs so as our hemoglobin carries O2 to everywhere in our body systems so we live healthily, is proven reality. The above other reality is unproven reality, cuz it's different for different people. & your reality defines me as following folly, mine defines it as faith in my belief of something. You'll have to therefore define 'valid,' when you use it with reference to 'argument.' & it all comes back to 'faith.' As we have faith in things & aspects of everyday living. We do things on faith all the time based on what we believe is valid evidence. &, I hate to do this, but what valid evidence for one with regard to having faith in something, is different for every person, or close to different. (One person needs more evidence to be able to trust someone than the next person, (same exact person in question to be trusted that is) altho when that point is reached, they have faith they can trust that same individual). That's what faith is, belief, yet not proven except to themselves.
Posted by rextr05 1 year ago
rextr05
Mr kal, cont 2, Your, "one of them got a huge following simply by "faith." As I stated b4, faith is based on our personal beliefs, thru how we view & experience our lives, whereas you define it with a more limiting definition & therefore our difference of opinion. An example of this is your "Faith holds absolutely no value in justification of anything," by your opinion, not necessarily everyone's or accepted by most standards of the word.

Your, "... As for the Catholicism bit ..." No, it is my perception of what the bible says. Catholicism added things 'just cuz' & things that are not in the bible & so one has to wonder why they had to add it. I am more from the belief of Jesus' teachings & the message of the bible than, adhering to this religious doctrine just ..... cuz. That doesn't say I am right or even correct, & the same re Catholicism. Just my belief. Also, doesn't mean either one of will not have advantage over the other in a salvation respect. It's just what makes sense to me. Kinda cool that according the bible, it's not the specific interpretation of this fact or that one we believe is true or not, it's Jesus' teachings that we observe & that we translate into living our lives that is important. It even states in the bible that God takes into consideration people that do not have any religious affiliation, but inherently live as Jesus taught, will have salvation.

Your, "... if your arguments all rely on the realms of unreality ..." OK, define reality & if you can prove yours is better or any more real than mine or others, unless there's some actual mental issues, I'll go with yours. Our reality is based on experiences & beliefs of our perceptions in life. An example: "He refuses to face reality he is not a success..." His reality is his perception of success maybe, or the Catholic's reality of certain doctrinal things I do not consider. People argue about the reality of love & tell the other they are crazy to think it's really love
Posted by rextr05 1 year ago
rextr05
Mr Kal, Yes, pretty much your faith is the same as mine. I use past experience, what I consider evidence (since what's what evidence to one person differs from the next person). Just as your tree, I consider things to evaluate what I believe in altho not exactly positive w/o a doubt going to come to pass. the tree may or may not grow into a tree, altho you have faith it will from past experience right? Same thing with love & loyalty & my belief in God. All based on faith from MY evidence. So, the definition for both our faiths is a belief that we believe to be true, but not yet proven or therefore no proof.

Your, "... A person with infinite wisdom would know that." Good point, altho a bit short sighted thinking only in limited wisdom as we humans have right? You seem to believe that God wanted to show proof of Himself, whereas He says over & over, He wants us to believe in faith. & that's where the definition comes in. For example ..... Just say God wanted to prove Himself, so He moves the Alps to the Sahara Desert. I think that would indeed substantiate Himself as God. All people would know He is God. But would they believe in Him out of a volitional choice or out of fear or any of the other reasons people follows things but not necessarily believe it is a good choice for themselves. It's almost like they have to follow or else. That's not faith, that's believing cuz they'd better or else ....... not a volitional personal individual choice.

Gospels don't all line up cuz they were written by 4 different authors with 4 different audiences with 4 different perspectives. Just as 4 different artists using the same exact object, but each artist has their own past experiences of how they view & their own style of a work of art. IE, an impressionist, abstact, etc. Same object but aimed at different audiences, etc. Same with the gospels. Covering the same subject, altho from how they saw it.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
ajttjaMr.KalTied
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 1 year ago
lannan13
ajttjaMr.KalTied
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 Paleophyte 1 year ago
Paleophyte
ajttjaMr.KalTied
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: Con forfeits
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
ajttjaMr.KalTied
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: Con ff several times, so conduct to Pro. Con dropped several arguments, so arguments to Pro. Only Pro had sources.