The Instigator
blazikin55
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
The_Gatherer
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Does the movie "God's Not Dead" prove the existence of God?

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 4 votes the winner is...
The_Gatherer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,845 times Debate No: 54477
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

blazikin55

Pro

I believe the movie "God's not Dead" does prove the existence of God!
The evidence proposed in this movie is actually factual and very believable
I was a christain questioning the existence of God, and after watching this movie I don't question it anymore.
The_Gatherer

Con

As this is a topic I am personally interested in, I would like to take up the challenge of this debate.

As my opponent has not stated which evidence from the said movie they are using to back up their assertion that the movie proves the existence of God, I will not in this round be able to make any argument against.

May I ask that my opponent list the evidence from the movie which he / she believes backs up their case that this movie proves the existence of God, and how said evidence proves the existence of God? From there we can debate the said evidence from the movie.

Thanks, and I look forward to an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1
blazikin55

Pro

Well I can't quote this directly but in all parts of the classes when character "Josh" is presenting his cases the evidence he proposed in factual so I took it upon myself to look up the information which he stated. One thing he did state was that "If you can't prove God exists then you can't disprove he exists." That saying the first round was opening statements and therefore need no arguments.
The_Gatherer

Con

In terms of proving if something exists. There are cases where it may be proven that something does not exist, such as if I were to claim I had 3 arms, a person could tell simply by looking that the 3rd arm did not exist. That is straightforward.

In the case of proving or disproving whether God exists, this is a trickier area as it is moving into the realm of attempting to prove whether something exists which is not a physical object, rather a concept described in a manuscript.

Supposing that God did exist, for the purpose of the debate. As the only evidence in existence for God at the present time is a number of ancient texts, these texts alone could not be used as sole proof of existence of God, in the same way that any other book could not be used as proof that the main character (fictional) actually exists. (In the case of non fictional texts, extensive investigation would be carried out by historians, archaeologists and the like.)

However, if someone was to claim that the fictional main character from a novel existed, how would a scientist, or any person go about disproving that? Well, if it was a recent book it would be a simple case of contacting the author of the work, who could then say "This character does not exist, he or she is a fictional creation of my own mind, written down for entertainment purposes." In this case, we have proved easily that the character mentioned does not in fact exist.

When it comes to disproving the existence of God, as the only evidence for the existence of God is an ancient manuscript (or rather collection of writings), the same principal should apply. Unfortunately, it is impossible to contact the authors of the said writings in order to ascertain the truth of their words. As such, it is impossible to simply disprove the existence of God, as one would easily disprove (or in some cases, prove) the existence of any other person or being which someone claimed to exist.

If, however we apply this principle generally, should it then extend to all written accounts for which there are no living authors to question? Historians spend a lot of time and do a lot of hard work investigating various sources and texts, as well as archaeological sites and so on, in order to gain information on past people and events which are as close to the truth as possible. Even then, these views are still subject to change whenever new evidence becomes available.

Considering the lengths that historians are required to go to, in order that they may claim to be presenting accurate facts regarding historical persons and events, and the rigorous scientific testing required for scientists to be able to prove and explain the nature of the natural world and the universe, it seems flippant to assert that because God cannot be simply disproved, therefore God must exist.

It is also interesting to note that a lot of work has taken place over many hundreds of years by people who wished to both prove and disprove the existence of God / Jesus / general biblical events, and as yet no evidence which would be accepted in the fields of history, science or archaeology has yet been found which validates the Bible as a genuine historical text based in fact.

As the bible is the only evidence for the existence of God, at this time, then we must conclude that although the existence of God can not be simply dis proven (as all those who could do so are very long dead), it would also be foolish to assume that this then proves that God does exist.

Take any claim from, for example, a cult leader. There have been very many said leaders who have claimed all sorts of hidden knowledge and bizarre things to exist. I can not right now disprove any of that. But in terms of common sense alone any sensible person would conclude that the person was simply lying or crazy, unless evidence was presented to prove the cult leader correct.

On this basis alone, I believe that the commonly used argument that "God cannot be disproved" is in itself functionally and logically flawed, further that if one was to live by this standard that the person would then also have to accept that all manner of strange things existed, for which they would see no actual evidence.

I will rest my case here for the moment, as my opponent has not specifically mentioned the other sources of evidence from the film which he / she found to be accurate and which he / she believed supported the case for the existence of God.

I will not put forth any evidence of my own at this point from the film to disprove the existence of God, as my opponent's original premise for the debate was that evidence from the movie proves God's existence, and therefore I await the evidence which my opponent believes shows this, so that I may debate those pieces of evidence.

I am taking a neutral stance on this, and not specifically debating whether or not God exists, but whether this movie contains evidence which proves the existence of God.

Thank you and I look forward to your argument.
Debate Round No. 2
blazikin55

Pro

I forfiet
The_Gatherer

Con

I'm disappointed that you have forfeit as I am always interested in finding out any new information on this subject.

Thanks anyway for the debate. :)
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Jjjohn 2 years ago
Jjjohn
"If you can't prove God exists then you can't disprove he exists.""

a failure to disprove god's existence is not a proof of existence. the inability to form a conclusion cannot be used to form a conclusion. that would be a contradiction.
Posted by Forgiven 2 years ago
Forgiven
I have not seen the movie, I am a Christian, and I am going to tell the answer to your question right now: No. Obviously not. There's no faith in knowledge. I don't have faith that two plus two will equal four. I know that two plus two equals for. I believe in salvation by faith alone. So proving the existence of God simply won't happen. Now, I also believe that some very logical arguments can be made to support the existence of God, but I do not believe that we will ever be able to prove that there is a God.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
blazikin55The_GathererTied
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 forfeits
Vote Placed by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
blazikin55The_GathererTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Lt.Harris 2 years ago
Lt.Harris
blazikin55The_GathererTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I have to say that I believe in God. I am a devote Christian but the way you presented this arguement was a little disspointing and while I believe in God and "God's Not Dead" is truly inspirational, it doesn't "prove" anything. It just provides very solid reaons on why to believe.
Vote Placed by Stalin_Mario 2 years ago
Stalin_Mario
blazikin55The_GathererTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF