The Instigator
pokemonali1
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Kryptic
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Does god exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Kryptic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 450 times Debate No: 75988
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

pokemonali1

Con

There is no proof of god. Scientists and atheists all have good reasons such as personal loss or the big bang Unitarianism is a good religion though. Personally I am not sure about god but i think that god gives people a sense of reason and a will to live.
Kryptic

Pro

Does "GOD" exist, what an unusual construction of words, what an incredible way to encourage thought. Firstly I would like to define what / who "GOD" is.

1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

These are the two meanings I quickly searched up on Google. I would be more formal on what dictionary meaning I should go with, however this will do, I'm sure everyone gets what I am trying to bring across.

I have decided to take the theistic side on this topic.

My reasoning for this is due to a few things... If someone claims to have been taken by aliens, and they are telling the truth, if they had the experience, whether a dream or not about getting probed or what ever the experience was and could sware beyond reasonable doubt that it actually occurred. Did it really occur AT LEAST for them? I am not going to go philosophical on this topic and say 'I couldn't possibly know who made this tree, therefore a 6000 year old earth, a literal 6 day creation and the Christian god is all true.'
But I am more talking on a personal level, when people have an experience and it scars them, if they believe it is true, it is equivalent trauma of it actually BEING true.

We see cases of criminals repenting of their ways and turning to a deity of some kind, becoming pastors and saint like people. They become the embodiment of who we want our generation to be, loving, caring, appreciating etc. They truly believe they had an encounter with Jesus or who ever and now want to live an up right life with the pursuit to be Christ like or what ever apostle like figure in their religion or spiritual journey. I think that's an incredible transition from thug or thief to saint.

The other issue I want to address is that Creationism and Intelligent Design advocates have tainted what it would be like to have science in mind while seeing what it is to have respect that a deity could have made the Earth / universe.
If these people were not so persistent on their ignorance to suggest something we don't see, there wouldn't be such a negative stigma on a 'god'. However due to these people we now have such a terrible value on those who look at things and see a god.
Personally, I go on youtube and look up videos when I'm bored, some of them involve fitness gurus like Elliot Hulse, his style of approach to issues is very spiritual however it isn't direct, he says god or the universe as he has no attachment to the idea. It's simply his way of acknowledging anything or something; he doesn't praise or worship or kill in the name of what ever god he chooses, but he simply respects the idea.

The last problem I see is that logical fallacies like 'God of the gaps', basically when people say "I don't know how something came to be, therefore god did it.". So far everything we have figured out has no direct supernatural or spiritual influence from anything, it has all been explained naturally.
Einstein and Newton both applied the God of the gaps fallacy to the extent of their knowledge, they said at the limits of their understanding ... 'THIS must be where god literally intervenes and puts everything together.' And well... it's not, we know even more now than they could have dreamed, we realise it's still not a literal intervention from a higher being.

The fallacy is in place due to an ignorance and lack of pursuit to find out more. Usually when people conclude that there is nothing else to look for and 'god' is the only logical next reason for the course of events that have taken place, there is no more searching because they have 'found' the prize.
But that doesn't mean to value or respect, accept, acknowledge or appreciate some kind of all powerful deity is a wrong thing. Only if it limits or prevents something that would otherwise be useful is it going to impact our lives.

Christopher Hitchens once said "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
If you make a statement and don't back it up, it's a useless statement. However, you could never acknowledge there is or isn't a deity.
The one who makes the claim must bring the evidence to support said claim. If someone who does not respect a deity comes forth, they must show evidence to suggest it doesn't. In terms of Christianity, people will usually come at it from the side of scientific evidence removing the possibility that death couldn't have come from sin but from... well death. That the earth is much older than 10,000 years. That not all of the animals could have fit in a boat and survived and relocate across the world and have a diversity such as we do today.
Evolution also shows a different picture.

To attack other religions people usually use different methods again.

However. To attack a DEITY in general is pointless as you couldn't. Those who claim there is NO deity at ALL have nothing to stand on to suggest otherwise as the deity in question if not apart of any religion has made no claims to have anything that contradicts what we have.

Again though, those who claim there is a deity have no ground to stand on other than perhaps an experience. But, similar to the alien abduction case, the best thing we have for evidence is an eye witness testimony, this just won't do.

Neil Degrasse Tyson said " If that"s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that"s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on - so just be ready for that to happen, if that"s how you want to come at the problem. "
In the end, if god is real to you, then that's fine. Personally I cannot claim to know or not know that any deity is real or not, so I am by definition an agnostic.
Agnostic - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
However I will not advocate making your god, if you so choose to believe in, an area of unknown knowledge.

Usually the problem we face is that people are peer pressured into what ever current scientists say so they won't be shunned. If all scientists said they believed in some kind of power, (which they wouldn't, but hypothetically here) we would see A LOT of people who are on the fence simply go with them. However, science only claims to observe the natural and makes NO claim of the supernatural.

Is God real?
Is God real to you?...

You have to come to your own conclusion, I have come to mine :)
Until further evidence, my mind has been made.
Debate Round No. 1
pokemonali1

Con

pokemonali1 forfeited this round.
Kryptic

Pro

...so yeah, Who or what is 'god' to you?
Debate Round No. 2
pokemonali1

Con

pokemonali1 forfeited this round.
Kryptic

Pro

Response needed, or forfeiture will be taking place.
Debate Round No. 3
pokemonali1

Con

pokemonali1 forfeited this round.
Kryptic

Pro

looks like a forfeiture
Debate Round No. 4
pokemonali1

Con

pokemonali1 forfeited this round.
Kryptic

Pro

I thankyou for the opportunity of this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Kryptic 1 year ago
Kryptic
I didn't bother with the conclusion.
it didn't seem fair on his side since he forfeited
Posted by Kryptic 1 year ago
Kryptic
I will make a conclusion, but yeah... this was an unfortunate debate
Posted by ailishm99 1 year ago
ailishm99
There is no proof that he exists, but there is also no proof that he doesn't exist. So, until we die we will never know for sure.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FlatEarthSociety 1 year ago
FlatEarthSociety
pokemonali1KrypticTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
pokemonali1KrypticTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: full forfeiture of con yields pro conduct. Pro made an argument of "if he is real to you then he is real", which upholds his side of the BoP and severely outweighs con's argument of "there isn't any proof" and just leaving it at that.