The Instigator
Atheism
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
TAHRAQUE
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Existence of God.

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 4 votes the winner is...
Atheism
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,699 times Debate No: 12281
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

Atheism

Con

You said in your thread that there is a god, and you can assure me that. Well, I want you to assure me. Please, try to refrain from scripture, as you would need to prove it for it to have any relevance.
By assure, I mean for you to present a very convincing argument, or at least a well thought out one. I want you to present such an argument that it will win you the majority of votes, or at least impress me.
TAHRAQUE

Pro

There is God!

To anyone who might see this debate, I accepted this debate not to win the majority of votes nor at least impress the author, or you. I accepted this debate only for the reason that, i want to share, that's all, it is up to you if you want to believe me or not.

if you have just noticed, in every post that I have posted, there are no hard feelings at all, so whatever your comments are, whoever you will vote for, I appreciate. Glory to GOD!

Maybe i cannot assure you, also, i might also fail to present a very convincing argument or at least well thought one, but i will state my case still...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is important to keep in mind that arguments for the existence of God, such as those supplied by a natural theology, fall short of absolute demonstration. Finite beings cannot demonstrate the existence of an Infinite God.

There is no argument known to us which, as an argument, leads to more than a probable (highly probable) conclusion. For example, most of us believe that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, but if we were to analyze the evidences, the arguments that lead to such conclusion, we should be force to admit that the arguments, good as they are, are characterized by a probability arguments. This is as far as the arguments, qua arguments, claim to go.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You may think that this is irrelevant and makes me as an agnostic, but like i have said before, man has an innate knowledge to God. This is evidenced by universal belief in a supreme being of some kind. A tribe can hardly be found without a faith in a higher being or force. "Man is incurably religious." This does not mean that all men have a full-formed belief in God. It does seem to indicate that religious belief and the propensity to worship a deity are natural to Man. Even atheists who denies God's existence demonstrates that he is confronted with the idea of God, and must in some way actively put away the concept.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For almost everything in nature, we find designed purpose; the universe everywhere displays precise and orderly movement. All things seem to be a part of the balance nature. The earth is tilted on its axis in relation to the sun, and thereby provides the seasons and the best distribution of light during the year. The earth is at an ideal distance from the sun to avoid searing heat and freezing cold. The chemical composition of the atmosphere is at an ideal balance for animal and vegetable life. The ratio of land and water on earth's surface gives proper rainfall and humidity. Wind and sea currents provide air conditioning and warm coastlines. Blessings like musical sound for the ears and the beauty of color show a design not needed for mere utility, and speak of a Creator who designed ears and eyes as receptors. Now, can intelligent beings believe that an impersonal force or process brought this marvelous universe into being?

An illustration is in order. One of the most common substances is water. Most of the other substances become more dense with lowered temperature. Water, fortunately, expands and becomes less dense when frozen. In the form of ice, water floats on top of lakes, rivers and seas. If water when frozen, became more dense and sank to the bottom; many rivers, lakes and seas would never thaw and much of the earth's surface would become glacial and unlivable. Did a wise creator give to water its different characteristics?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are two points.

First, human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it.

Secondly, they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it.

These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To the author, God loves you, that I can assure you!
Glory to GOD.
Debate Round No. 1
Atheism

Con

/It is important to keep in mind that arguments for the existence of God, such as those supplied by a natural theology, fall short of absolute demonstration. Finite beings cannot demonstrate the existence of an Infinite God./
True.
/There is no argument known to us which, as an argument, leads to more than a probable (highly probable) conclusion. For example, most of us believe that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, but if we were to analyze the evidences, the arguments that lead to such conclusion, we should be force to admit that the arguments, good as they are, are characterized by a probability arguments. This is as far as the arguments, qua arguments, claim to go./
Actually, there are arguments like that. Arguments can influence the conclusion. As you stated before, as we can neither disprove or prove god, we can influence the probability of if it is real or isn't. And, contrary to your belief, we KNOW that the sun will rise tomorrow. We have analyzed the sun to such a degree, we even know the general time when it will die.

/You may think that this is irrelevant and makes me as an agnostic, but like i have said before, man has an innate knowledge to God./
Actually, religion needs to be implanted. Therefore, it is not natural. Ergo, man is born without knowledge against or for god.

/This is evidenced by universal belief in a supreme being of some kind./
Actually, atheists don't believe in god, Buddhists don't believe in god, and agnostics don't believe in god. I am sure there are other religions that don't believe in god, but I can't be bothered to find them.

/A tribe can hardly be found without a faith in a higher being or force./
Usually, tribes are religious only because the elders of the tribe implant the ideas in the next generation, and so on and so forth. Tribes today pass religious beliefs down as tradition, so a child born in these tribes would almost assuredly be religious. Also, there was a tripe who was without religious belief. http://freethinker.co.uk...[1]

/Man is incurably religious." This does not mean that all men have a full-formed belief in God. It does seem to indicate that religious belief and the propensity to worship a deity are natural to Man./
Why do you keep saying man? Say human, or man/her. But anyways, I have disproved this point, so this is now baseless.
/Even atheists who denies God's existence demonstrates that he is confronted with the idea of God, and must in some way actively put away the concept./
There are at least two types of atheists. One, those who simply are ignorant of religion or don't give a flying fuc*, and those that actively deny god's existence. The ladder puts it away, not because they 'can't find the truth,' but because they realize it is quite ridiculous.

/For almost everything in nature, we find designed purpose; the universe everywhere displays precise and orderly movement. All things seem to be a part of the balance nature./
If you would look at other planets, in other solar systems in galaxies, you would find this is not the case. Ours is simply quite lucky. From Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion, he states that there is a one in a billion chance at the origin of life. He then goes on to say that if this were true, there'd be at least one billion planets in the universe that have life at some level or another. We are quite lucky that the Earth had conditions for evolution, but everything that followed was the farthest thing from luck.

/The earth is tilted on its axis in relation to the sun, and thereby provides the seasons and the best distribution of light during the year. The earth is at an ideal distance from the sun to avoid searing heat and freezing cold. The chemical composition of the atmosphere is at an ideal balance for animal and vegetable life. The ratio of land and water on earth's surface gives proper rainfall and humidity. Wind and sea currents provide air conditioning and warm coastlines. Blessings like musical sound for the ears and the beauty of color show a design not needed for mere utility, and speak of a Creator who designed ears and eyes as receptors. Now, can intelligent beings believe that an impersonal force or process brought this marvelous universe into being?/
Obviously, we can. You have not provided proof of a creator, you have simply given me common facts of the Earth. Why isn't it like this on all the other planets? Wouldn't it be ideal for us to have hundreds of planets for us, waiting for us to migrate from planet to planet, filling them up with trash as we go? Or, even better, a one, perfect planet that can never be spoiled by the ills of mankind? Why hasn't god done this for us?
Now, I can reverse this. The cold, emptiness on Mars, that has some bacteria, but nothing more. Why did god do this? On Mercury, blazingly hot temperatures that scorch anything that comes near. God did this why? Simple. Because it didn't, and we are merely lucky.

/An illustration is in order. One of the most common substances is water. Most of the other substances become more dense with lowered temperature. Water, fortunately, expands and becomes less dense when frozen. In the form of ice, water floats on top of lakes, rivers and seas. If water when frozen, became more dense and sank to the bottom; many rivers, lakes and seas would never thaw and much of the earth's surface would become glacial and unlivable. Did a wise creator give to water its different characteristics?/
No, this is simply how atoms and molecules react when formed as H2O. What about CO2? By your logic, god created this as well. Why? You obviously don't have an answer.

/First, human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it./
Oh, really? Are you referring to morals? There is not set moral code. Going back to those tribes you mentioned, some think cannibalism is good, and holy. Obviously, that's not what you think. And I don't think they ignore morals, they are simply going by their own. Morals are subjective, not objective.

Secondly, they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it./
Again, you bring this as if morals were set, and disobeying them is wrong. For example, you might think cannibalism is wrong. However, to those tribes, they say it is a ritual, and it is what their god commands them to do. Now what? They think it is right, whole-heartedly, and you do not, whole-heartedly. Who are we to go with? Personally, I think if you are a cannibal, go for it. I really don't care two bits about you, just stay away from me.

/These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in./
No they are not. I have disproved your objective morals thinking, or, at the very least, exposed and destroyed your fallacious arguments.

I eagerly await your response.

Sources:
http://freethinker.co.uk...[1]
TAHRAQUE

Pro

i rest my case...
Debate Round No. 2
Atheism

Con

Pro has not refuted any of my arguments.
Arguments extended, vote con.
TAHRAQUE

Pro

Yeah, vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
Atheism

Con

So Tahraque, why are you forfeiting?
TAHRAQUE

Pro

Like i have said, my only job is TO SHARE.
And GOD will do the rest...
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by TAHRAQUE 7 years ago
TAHRAQUE
I changed my religion setting from atheist to wikkan, and nothing is personal there, in that, i was able to know that criticizers about the existence of GOD i am trying to prove, are quite aware ONLY of things they see, they feel, they think right or wrong...how about the things which are Infinite? WE are finite, so knowledge has limitations...

and i am quite aware i will lose in this debate, well, it is not about winning, the only thing for me is to SHARE...that's all.

It's like feeding a 3-year-old child, you put the food in his mouth, then he chews it, it's up to him if he refuses...
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
wjm, I'm pretty sure TAHRAQUE isn't a Christian. He claims to be Wikkan. He's just a parody Christian.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
PRO, you are going to lose if you don't refute CON.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by ravenwaen 7 years ago
ravenwaen
AtheismTAHRAQUETied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
AtheismTAHRAQUETied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Yvette 7 years ago
Yvette
AtheismTAHRAQUETied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
AtheismTAHRAQUETied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50