Existence of God(s)
Here we go,
I do not believe that a god exists because I have no logical reason to do so.
There is nothing that proves the existence of god and therefore in order to believe in one, faith is a requirement. I challenge you to deliver a logical argument as to why you believe it is not absurd to believe in something that is not demonstrable.
Simple definition of a monotheistic God:
the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
Please note: If you wish to redefine God to something tailored more specifically to your beliefs, please feel free to do so.
With that being said, I would like to clarrify that according to what my opponent has said, in order to win this debate I must be able to justify my belief, even though HE seems to find it undemonstrable and absurd. Keep in mind that just because he believes this to be so, does not make his belief a matter of fact, and I, in no way, agree with him.
His job in this debate will be to construct an argument that supports his claim, as well as coming up with effective rebuttals to my arguments.
Seeing that he did not set rules for this debate(probably due to the fact that he's new to DDO) I will take the liberty of doing so myself.
5th round-rebuttals, no new arguments
Please, let's both agree to defer from the use of SILLY/ABSURD semantic tactics.
Also, seeing as how my opponent made the claim, and is the instigator of this debate, the burden of proof lies with him. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Thanx to my opponent for this interesting topic.
Let the mental jousting begin :)
For comic relief^, not meant to insult my opponent.
That being said I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that no claim has been made. I in fact do no believe that god(s) exist, however I never asserted that one or many do not exist. My opponent should certainly recognize that disbelief is not a claim.
As to the matter of there being no evidence of god(s), This is something I can elaborate further upon. My opponents profile displays his belief to be that of a Pentecostal Christian, and I will therefore structure my outline of the lack of evidence towards his beliefs in particular.
1) BIBLICAL CONTRADICTION
The bible, the collection of books allegedly inspired by God, is filled with a plethora of contradictions concerning creation, history, morality, and the nature of God himself. Due to the fact that it would take many more characters than available to list them all, here are a few links listing the hundreds of contradictions contained within the bible:
If the bible was in fact inspired by God, then why is it filled with an overwhelming amount of contradictory information?
2) ARGUMENT FROM NON-BELIEF
1.God is omniscient.
2.God is omnipotent.
3.God wants everyone to believe in him.
4.Since God is omniscient, he knows exactly what demonstration would convince any given person that he exists.
5.Since God is omnipotent, he is capable of performing this demonstration.
6.Since God wants everyone to believe in him, he wants to perform this demonstration.
7.However, atheists manifestly exist.
8.Therefore, the god described by the first three conditions does not exist.
If there is a God and wanted everyone to believe in him, then why would he rely solely on ancient manuscripts full of error and inconsistencies of which we only have copies of copies of translations of copies? There seems to be a lack of communication between this alleged God and humanity.
3) THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
1. God is omnipotent.
2. God is omnibenevolent.
3. God is omniscient.
4. Evil exists.
My opponent will most likely posit that there is a reason for evil and that the bigger picture is beyond human understanding. The question is, Why is that the case? The very fact that people are suffering all over the world, is one that begs the question, why would God allow this? An equally important question is why would anyone worship someone who would allow such atrocities to occur?
4) WHERE IS YOUR DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE?
Putting aside the fact that many "accounts" from the bible (including the account of creation) have proven to be false, there is no evidence that any god exists. What reason does my opponent have for putting faith into something demonstrable?
I thank my opponent for his prompt response and I apologize for my delayed response. I’ve been busy preparing for mid-terms.
I would first like to clarify the objective of this debate; I do not have to prove that God exists in order to win this debate, it is not the subject at hand, and is not the challenge in which my opponent presented to me. My opponent states: “I challenge you to deliver a logical argument as to why you believe it is not absurd to believe in something that is not demonstrable.” I can either argue that God is demonstrable or argue that it is not absurd to believe in him even if he isn’t demonstrable.
Just because my profile states that I am a Pentecostal Christian, does not mean that this will be the perspective I will be arguing from.
1. Bible Contradiction
If my opponent wants to present a few specific things in the Bible that he feels are contradictory, then I welcome him to do so, but he can’t just post various links of supposed “hundreds of conrtradictions contained within the bible” and expect me to disprove every single one of them. That’s unreasonable and impossible to do given the character limit we have.
Also, if you take a closer look at the links, you’ll notice that they are all on atheist based sites. This is extremely biased, and thus his so called evidence is not to be taken seriously. If I was a drug lord, and came to you asking to borrow your car, promising to return it, would you believe me? What if I presented one of my subordinates and he testified to my honesty, would you believe me then? Of course not, my subordinate is loyal to me, is a criminal, and is biased; only protecting his own interests.
2. Argument From Non-Belief
I would like to begin dissecting this argument from premise 2, which states that God is omnipotent. One thing I would like to point out is that God’s omnipotence can be viewed from many different perspectives, one of them being that God is able to do anything that is in accordance with his nature.
It is God’s nature to give human beings free will. If there was such an act that could be done that would undoubtedly convince every one of his existence, then he would be robbing them of their free will. He has now set things into motion that would force a person to believe in him. God would not do this, because it is not in his nature to do so.
God’s existence is quite obvious to me, and I feel that God has provided me with sufficient evidence, so if I denied that God existed, then I would have an irrational/unreasonable belief as in regards to what I know. If another person claims that he has not been provided with enough evidence, and that he in fact does not believe, how am I to know whether he or she is being truthful? There would be no way for me to verify this, or understand their method of thinking, without being that person.
The evidence that I have received is a personal experience and a personal experience is something that can only be known to the person who experienced it. It may be evidence for one person, but not evidence for another. From this we can see that the Argument From Non Belief may indeed be evidence to an individual who feels they have not been presented with an opportunity to know God, but this cannot be considered evidence to another person. We can see that the argument from non-belief is completely useless as a means to disprove the existence of God to another person. It is impossible for me to know whether or not a person’s claimed non-belief is actually the case.
I am very busy, and do not have the time to refute his other contentions, as of right now I am late to practice. So I will conclude my rebuttals right here, but I promise to give his other contentions their due attention, in my next round.
To address the matter of bias from the sources I presented in the previous round, it is in fact irrelevant to this debate where the "sources" originate from because the links provided are merely criticism of the actual source (the bible) in which the contradictions occur. My opponent does indeed have a point on the matter of the plethora of contradictions provided. Apropos to my opponents time constraint and the number of characters available, I will be succinct and provide only three for him to address; however, due to the fact that my opponent has yet to assume a position concerning his specific beliefs, it is impossible to know which will apply as contradictions as the context of the bible has been translated in a seemingly illimitable number of ways (hence the great number of denominations [see link for listing])
The contradictions will be specific to one topic as revealed below:
BIBLICAL CONTRADICTION (MORALITY OF GOD)
1) The same God who forbade killing, stealing, adultery, and slavery, commanded robbery, rape, infanticide, and slavery:
The Lord will gather all of the nations together. They will fight against Jerusalem. They'll capture the city. Its houses will be robbed. Its women will be raped. Half of the people will be taken away as prisoners. But the rest of them won't be taken.
Their babies will be smashed to pieces right in front of their eyes. Their houses will be robbed. Their wives will be raped.
2) The loving and merciful God's decision to destroy all of humanity excluding Noah and his kin, becoming the greatest mass murderer of all time:
Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.
3) The all merciful God condemns those who don't see things his way, to a lake of fire for all of eternity.
And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.
ARGUMENT FROM NON-BELIEF
As my opponent reiterated, my challenge was, "I challenge you to deliver a logical argument as to why you believe it is not absurd to believe in something that is not demonstrable." Thus far, he has only claimed to believe because of a personal experience and has brought forth no demonstration of the "sufficient evidence" his God has provided him with.
As far as personal experience not being relevant to others who have not experienced the same, why is it then that one would believe in the personal accounts of the bible? Furthermore, what logic is there in attempting to convince someone that a belief is rational based on an unexplained personal experience?
An additional thank you to my opponent who is fitting this debate into his busy schedule. Good luck on the mid-terms.
MikeyMike forfeited this round.
Hopefully he can find the time in the following round.
MikeyMike forfeited this round.
Thank you to everyone who took the time to check it out! Should anyone be interested in debating on this matter please feel free to challenge me.
MikeyMike forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|