The Instigator
TheDebater9000
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jerry947
Pro (for)
Winning
1 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 1 vote the winner is...
Jerry947
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 403 times Debate No: 84829
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

TheDebater9000

Con

Round 1: acceptance
Round 2: Opening statements/ arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: further rebuttals (no new arguments)
Round 5: sources
God: any god from any religion (one has to be picked though)
Exist: Real
this should be fun.
Jerry947

Pro

I accept this debate. I will be arguing for the existence of the Christian God.
Debate Round No. 1
TheDebater9000

Con

Since there is no way to prove god's existence I will try to cast doubt on god's existence and pro will try to show the likelihood of god. I have 3 main arguments for why the existence of god is highly unlikely, and propose 3 questions for my opponent to answer.

My arguments are;

1. Many of the actions attributed to god did not or cannot happen.

2. God cannot of created the universe because there is not before the universe.

3. The bible contradicts itself

My questions are;

1. If there is a omnibenevolent god why do things like diseases still exist?

2. How are you sure that the Christian god is the one true god?

3. Do you any other proof besides the bible and personal experience?

My first argument:

Many of the actions attributed to god did not or cannot(scientifically) happen. My reasoning is stories like noah"s ark could not have happened under the laws of physics. A seafaring vessel of this size physically cannot exist - it would be torn apart by the waves, as shown in the case of the Columbus and many others.(https://en.wikipedia.org...) There is not enough water on planet earth to hold a boat of this size. This also brings up the issue that the combined mass of 2 of every single type of animal(or 2 of every unclean and 7 of every clean animal, by another estimate) would sink the ship. According to the New York Times there are an estimated 10-50 million species. This is significant because it casts doubt the validity of the Bible, which is used as "proof" for God"s existence.

My second argument:

God cannot have created the universe because there was scientifically not a time before the universe. My reasoning is that the big bang was the birth of the universe so it was the birth of time so there is no time before the universe. Stephen Hawking said "There is nothing bigger or older than the universe," as a theoretical physicist he is very qualified to talk about these things. From what we know about the conception of our universe time is a concept that started at the beginning of our universe, there isn"t such thing as negative time. If there was no time before the universe, then when did God create it?

My third argument:

The bible contradicts itself. While not relating to the debate persay, I am removing the bible as a credible source for pro to use. There are many contradictions within the Bible such as:

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

This is a contradiction on whether god is for peace or war.

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 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.

This is a contradiction on whether Jesus is equal or lesser than to God. To provide further contradictions I encourage both my opponent and any viewers to look at this link:

http://infidels.org....
Jerry947

Pro

First of all I have to say that I really appreciate the way my opponent actually gives some arguments against the Christian God. Many people I debate give up and say that there are no arguments against the existence of God and expect me to do all of the work in the debate. My only qualm is that my opponent clearly hasn't read the Bible and relies too heavily on websites for the part about the supposed Bible Contradictions. That said, I will not address any of his arguments until the third round since this round is for me to present my arguments for God.

The Axiological Argument:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

My brief defense of this premise: Objective morals have to come from an objective source and that source can only be God. Nothing/nobody else could produce an objective moral code.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

My brief defense of this premise: Almost all people are aware that murder, lying, stealing, and etc...are wrong. it seems crazy to believe that every person just so happens to have the same subjective opinion on these basic moral principles. There must be some sort of universal moral law that exists.

3. Therefore, God exists.

That is thee short version of the argument. Please tell me what problems you have with the argument and I will address them in the next round.

The Teleological argument:

The world is so complex that there must be a creator. According to Roger Penrose of Oxford University, he has calculated that the odds of that low-entropy state's (state in which the universe began) existing by chance alone is on the order of one chance out of 10^10(123). That number is inconceivable. The odds are so against a life permitting universe that it is like a criminal (representing the universe) is about to be executed by a firing squad (representing odds against life permitting universe) and then the members of the firing squad all miss. People claim that it happened by chance. Christians say that it is ludicrous to think it happened by chance. Why? Because something feels rigged. It is completely logical to believe that there is an intelligent designer especially since everything is so complex. On the other hand, it is crazy to call all of this simple chance.
Source: http://www.qcc.cuny.edu......

The Cosmological argument:

The argument in a nutshell is as follows:
a. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
b. The universe began to exist.
c. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
d. Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent).
God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe. If you have any objections to any of the premises in this argument, see source and see if your objection is listed there. The source gives good explanations to the objections it lists.
Source: https://carm.org......

The Ontological Argument: (I believe this is Anselm's version)

a. It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone.
"God" means "that than which a greater cannot be thought."
b. Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality.
Then a being greater than God could be thought (namely, a being that has all the qualities our thought of God has plus real existence).
c. But this is impossible, for God is "that than which a greater cannot be thought."
d. Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality.
Debate Round No. 2
TheDebater9000

Con

TheDebater9000 forfeited this round.
Jerry947

Pro

I will pass this round to make things fair.
Debate Round No. 3
TheDebater9000

Con

TheDebater9000 forfeited this round.
Jerry947

Pro

I will pass one more time.
Debate Round No. 4
TheDebater9000

Con

TheDebater9000 forfeited this round.
Jerry947

Pro

"If there is a omnibenevolent god why do things like diseases still exist?"

Because of sin. Sin caused evil to enter the world and God allows it to exist so that humans can have free will. That said, God does promise that one day there will be no more evil/disease.

"How are you sure that the Christian god is the one true god?"

I have a personal relationship with him and I also also believe what the people of the time period said about him.

"Do you any other proof besides the bible and personal experience?"

No other proof is needed. Although I gave you some arguments that you were never able to respond to.

"Many of the actions attributed to god did not or cannot(scientifically) happen. My reasoning is stories like noah"s ark could not have happened under the laws of physics."

Events like these could not be caused by humans. But an all powerful God could do whatever he wanted. He is the ultimate mathematician and scientist after-all.

"According to the New York Times there are an estimated 10-50 million species."

I would like to see a source for this. That said, how in the world would they know how many species there were when they weren't there?

"God cannot have created the universe because there was scientifically not a time before the universe."

Time did not exist before the universe. That is correct. This means that the cause of the universe had to be timeless which means that it is very probable that God created the universe. The big bang merely shows that the Universe had a beginning (including time) but it doesn't state what caused this beginning. I would ask my opponent what he thinks caused the universe into existence.

"I am removing the bible as a credible source for pro to use. There are many contradictions within the Bible"

No...there are no contradictions in the Bible. There are only people that refuse to read the whole thing.

"This is a contradiction on whether god is for peace or war."

I will give you the short response. God uses war to establish peace in certain circumstances. This really isn't that complicated to understand.

"This is a contradiction on whether Jesus is equal or lesser than to God."

Jesus is equal to God in the sense that he is God. But the father is greater in the sense that while Jesus is man, he was still subject to the laws God created (https://carm.org...).

"To provide further contradictions I encourage both my opponent and any viewers to look at this link:"

And why do people always go to links for Bible contradictions? I could refute every single claim in that link but yet it would be so much easier for you to read the whole Bible.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: lannan13// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture

[*Reason for removal*] As both sides presented arguments and this was not a full forfeit debate, the voter has to do more to justify S&G, arguments and sources than just cite the forfeits.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: thett3// Mod action: Removed<

7 point to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: forfeit

[*Reason for removal*] As both sides presented arguments and this was not a full forfeit debate, the voter has to do more to justify S&G, arguments and sources than just cite the forfeits.
************************************************************************
Posted by snkcake666 10 months ago
snkcake666
Yup, I was right. Here as go with the typical 'Bible is invalid, blah, blah, blah' argument. I swear, people cannot simply state the philosophies themselves, can they? They just leech off a famous figure without giving it a second thought themselves.
Posted by snkcake666 10 months ago
snkcake666
@Thiest
Probably because there notably -is- no evidence to prove or disprove God. I would assume he is agnostic out of skepticism for immediate attribution to either side of the debate.
Posted by Thiest_1998 10 months ago
Thiest_1998
Btw @AngryBlogger why are you an agnostic
Posted by snkcake666 10 months ago
snkcake666
How about a debate for once which does not debate over the validity of various religions' Holy texts, rather, one which philosophically describes the phenomenon of a god itself?
Posted by Thiest_1998 10 months ago
Thiest_1998
I think science does point to a creator and showing God's word aka the Bible is 110% true
1. The flood eg the canyons found all over the world like grand canyon and fossils, the mid Atlantic Ridge showing where the fountains of the deep broke open, just like it says in Genesis 7:11 and for logical reasons for example how did we everything get here from nothing as cosmic evolution teaches to think uranium can fuse pass hydrogen is obsured.
Posted by moneystacker 10 months ago
moneystacker
I'm an apostolic Christian however I debated a debate like this and it was pointless. First of all science has no imperial proof god doesn't exist and we have no imperial proof that he does. It's a faith based religion thus you must choice to believe in him or to not believe in him.

Also since no side has "world based imperial proof" I realize these debates are pointless. If I debate a topic like this its mainly now about my religion vs another or something of that nature.
Posted by dsjpk5 10 months ago
dsjpk5
Since the resolution is a question, the burden of proof should be shared.
Posted by AngryBlogger 10 months ago
AngryBlogger
I wished you morons would stop with the "burden of proof" thing and just slap yourselves for saying it.

You cannot 100% prove god, or deny gods existence. You just simply cannot do that right now, so basically when you say "the burden of proof is on my opponent" you are not giving them a chance to win.

These god debates should be based on the BETTER ARGUMENTS that are more CONVINCING. Also, the burden of proof is more so on the unbeliever. Theists don't need to convince anyone, they have their bible, and have the word of god. It's more so the unbeliever who carries the burden of proof.

By the way, I'm agnostic, and lean more towards atheism before you accuse me of being a believer.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 10 months ago
dsjpk5
TheDebater9000Jerry947Tied
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: Con ff many times, so conduct to Pro.