The Instigator
Hamalish
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SM2
Con (against)
Winning
1 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 1 vote the winner is...
SM2
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/4/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 464 times Debate No: 80492
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)

 

Hamalish

Pro

I will start off this argument by saying that, according to me, god has to exist. Or any kind of superior force or power. The universe is way to complex. i don't think that such precision and organisation can be accomplished all by it's own. Everything needs a designer, a creator. Thus, the universe and it's entire pack of complexity need a creator.

If you are going to ask me about who created god, here is the response : God isn't a material creation. God is a spirit. if god needed a creator, a designer, god just wouldn't be god.
SM2

Con

I accept the debate, and will attempt to show that the complexity of the universe can arise naturally, without the need for a creator.
Debate Round No. 1
Hamalish

Pro

Okay yes, the big bang theory is quite possible and the theory of evolution as well. This might, at first, contradict the theory of creationism in the bible.

But if we look at it closely, the theory of creationism surprisingly ressembles the big bang and the creation of humans. A"day" would be a time period.

God separates day and night. The big bang

God separate the sky from the earth. The creation of matter.

God creates the land and stars, etc. ( 2 days together ) The formation of planets.

God create animals. Appearance of life.

God creates humans. Evolution

According to me, the bible is only a human reinterpretation of what actually happened. Just think about it. There might be some sort of vision humans had to get these ideas
SM2

Con

Pro's opening argument: the universe is too complex to exist without a creator.

Pro's supporting argument: Genesis 1 can be interpreted as a timeline of the universe.

Few problems:

1. You missed out plants, on the 3rd day. Since plants don't predate planets, your timeline fails.

2. Genesis 1 doesn't prove anything, as it could just be fictional.

3. You have not provided a reason why the universe's complexity requires a creator.

Pro has failed to meet his burden of proof. I can't meet mine until he meets his, because science is enormous and thus I need to tailor my points to Pro's. Also, because I have a 750 character limit. Seriously, what's up with that?

Two rounds left. Pro has to meet BOP in Round 3, or else he loses the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
Hamalish

Pro

Hamalish forfeited this round.
SM2

Con

My opponent has basically forfeited the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
Hamalish

Pro

Hamalish forfeited this round.
SM2

Con

Thank you and goodnight.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Hamalish 1 year ago
Hamalish
Sorry for forfeiting. I was absent for a weekend... I have to agree, you won this debate since i did'nt properly awnser
Posted by SM2 1 year ago
SM2
@ Furyan5

Are you my opponent for this debate? No? Then it isn't about you, and I will not engage you here.

If you would like to debate me on a subject, please issue a challenge or link me to a relevant forum topic (preferably one you've made yourself). Hijacking the comments section is just rude, and I don't debate against rudeness.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
If you can't answer the question its pointless debating you. Avading answering questions seems to be the only way atheists win debates.
Posted by SM2 1 year ago
SM2
@ Furyan5

I am not going to answer any of your questions here. If you want to discuss this, make a forum or debate page instead of hijacking the comments section.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
I never raised the topic. I asked you a simple question. Can something exist without a cause? Yes or no! Is the question too complicated for you?
Posted by SM2 1 year ago
SM2
@ Furyan5

If you're going to debate topics that you don't understand, can you please make a forum topic about it instead of using this comments section? This debate is about God, not antimatter.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
They changed the charge on an electron from negative to positive and claim its antimatter. Lol seriously? Matter and antimatter can not coexist. If it actually exists and comes into contact with matter, both would be destroyed in a huge explosion of energy. Antimatter and dark matter are the new magic lamp of science. Anything which can't be explained is thrown at the door of antimatter and nobody can argue because nobody can find any to test its properties. As for those who believe a positron is antimatter, all I can say is, well done!
Posted by SM2 1 year ago
SM2
Antimatter does exist and has been produced.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

If you guys are going to debate, can you please take it to the forums?
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
Lol that's from a movie you idiot. Go do some research. Antimatter has never and will never be produces. It was theorized. That means some idiot came up with the idea.
Posted by V5RED 1 year ago
V5RED
Well that is just a bald faced lie, antimatter has been produced by laboratories, we can even figure out a price to produce it.

It also has nothing to do with the fact that you presented a false dichotomy and I offered a third option. That probably took you off your script that was probably going to be the flawed kalem cosmological argument, hence your bald faced lie which was a red herring as well.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SirMaximus 1 year ago
SirMaximus
HamalishSM2Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better conduct, because Pro forfeited 2 rounds, but Con didn't forfeit any rounds. I understood both of them pretty well, so they tie for spelling and grammar. As for arguments, Pro merely stated that everything needs a designer, and that the Biblical account of Creation might not contradict The Big Bang Theory and The Theory of Evolution. Pro doesn't explain why everything needs a designer, and Pro doesn't give evidence that the Bible is true. Pro merely states that the Bible might not conflict with certain scientific theories as some people claim, which is just a response to a claim, not a claim in itself. Con says that he can't meet his BOP (burden of proof) until Pro meets Pro's burden of proof, but why? Con says that it's because "science is enormous and thus [he] need[s] to tailor [his] points to Pro's", but I'm not sure that I understand this. Why can't Con make his own argument against God's existence just because Pro hasn't yet? Neither used any sources, so they tie.