The Instigator
TAHRAQUE
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
sqr47
Con (against)
Winning
50 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/28/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,439 times Debate No: 12172
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (11)

 

TAHRAQUE

Pro

To all skeptics and atheists, agnostics, freethinkers and humanists...

I can prove to all of you that God exists...
sqr47

Con

Ok, prove it
Debate Round No. 1
TAHRAQUE

Pro

Ask anything that would contradict God's existence..

First of all, here is y theory:

big bang = Jesus
sqr47

Con

Ok, certain species are extinct. Why would God let his creations be destroyed?
Debate Round No. 2
TAHRAQUE

Pro

Very simple... why did my cousin's father die?

relevance? because nothing is permanent...
sqr47

Con

How is that relevant? That does not prove that God exists... Exactly everything living dies, so how would that prove God's existence?
Debate Round No. 3
TAHRAQUE

Pro

It is difficult for a NATURAL man to believe in something that he cannot see, touch or feel 1 Corinthians 2:14

The problem for the Christian is solved in the first verse of the Bible, "In the beginning, God created the Heaven and Earth," Genesis 1:1

The Bible is not a textbook that attempts to prove the existence of God--the Bible opens with a positive fact that God does exists.

I will take no long proofs from the scriptures because i assume you do not believe the word of God (but correct if i am wrong)

Proof from Cause
>The world is here. It must have come from somewhere. Somebody or something must have caused it to come into being at one time or another.

>Here is a book. Someone must have written it. No printing press can of itself produce a book, be it ever so modern press with the latest electrical gadgets.

>Someone built this building. Someone created the trees. Someone operates the universe.

"If all the pieces of a watch were placed in a can and the can shaken gently for a million years, the watch would not be "accidentally" put together and running.

The only sensible answer to the problem the existence of the world is the existence of an intelligent Being whom we call God.
sqr47

Con

(1) "The Bible is not a textbook that attempts to prove the existence of God--the Bible opens with a positive fact that God does exists."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I, being Jewish, do not study or follow the Bible, only what you would refer to as the Old Testament, so I do not know about Corinthians 2:14 to start. Since this argument is you trying to prove the existence of God though, I don't think that using a scripture thousands of years old supposedly created by said God without any proof of this creates a legitimate argument. So yes, you are basically right in saying "I will take no long proofs from the scriptures because I assume you do not believe the word of God (but correct if i am wrong)". I would like to point out that I actually believe in the same God that you do, just not a creator God (this in no way de-legitimatizes my argument as I am arguing that you cannot prove the existence of God, not that God does not exist).

(2) "The world is here. It must have come from somewhere. Somebody or something must have caused it to come into being at one time or another."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This obviously does not prove that God exists, as there is near infinite amounts of proof of the Big Bang and theories on how it happened, none of them relating to God.

(3) "Someone built this building. Someone created the trees. Someone operates the universe."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humans built the building, trees reproduced and evolved to form other trees, the universe was created by the big bang or one of the other many theories scientists have.

(4) "'If all the pieces of a watch were placed in a can and the can shaken gently for a million years, the watch would not be 'accidentally' put together and running."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is exactly what happened though, the universe got lucky

I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 4
TAHRAQUE

Pro

Life comes from life and the original life must have come from Being possessing eternal life, that is, life that existed before physical life, that includes the universe...

TIME begins simultaneously with the birth of the universe, and God is NOT within that time...

if you would say, the big bang theory was the beginning of all time, then who created that "big bang"?

a.>(This obviously does not prove that God exists, as there is near infinite amounts of proof of the Big Bang and theories on how it happened, none of them relating to God.)<

b.>(Humans built the building, trees reproduced and evolved to form other trees, the universe was created by the big bang or one of the other many theories scientists have.)<

c.>(That is exactly what happened though, the universe got lucky)<

"Since this argument is you trying to prove the existence of God though, I don't think that using a scripture thousands of years old supposedly created by said God without any proof of this creates a legitimate argument."

well, i think i have to defend the Bible this time:
THe Bible is an UNCHANGING REVELATION, much of the uncertainty and unbelief in the Bible have come from the so-called SCIENTISTS. Because the inerrancy of the Bible is on the level of observable facts, it is most open to attacks from skeptical and unbelieving scholars. Science has assumed an aura of authority and almost infallibility. Many have made a virtual god out of it. The word "science" simply means "knowledge", and is to be neither worshiped nor feared. The significant thing about science is that it is CONSTANTLY having to CHANGE ITS CONCLUSIONS AS FRESH FACTS COME TO LIFE. Scientific textbooks only a few years old are virtually OUT OF DATE today, while the BIBLE has not had to be altered in the last degree over THOUSANDS of years since it was written.

Why should one doubt a Book that has withstood the centuries, and every attack leveled against it, for sciences that have to be revised every few years?

Because nothing is permanent except God, science changes, but the Word of God do not...
sqr47

Con

(1) "Life comes from life and the original life must have come from Being possessing eternal life, that is, life that existed before physical life, that includes the universe..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this argument, you are simply relying on your theory that everything needs to be created by someone. Obviously, you don't understand how this world works. Flowers are born from the seeds of other flowers, yet nothing intelligent makes them, they still exist.

(2) "TIME begins simultaneously with the birth of the universe, and God is NOT within that time..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This would rely on God existing, which you have not (and will not, as this is the final round), provided proof of.

(3) "if you would say, the big bang theory was the beginning of all time, then who created that "big bang"?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again, there does not need to be someone for something to be created.

(4) "so-called SCIENTISTS."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"so-called SCIENTISTS." What is that supposed to mean? You don't believe they exist?

(5) "The significant thing about science is that it is CONSTANTLY having to CHANGE ITS CONCLUSIONS AS FRESH FACTS COME TO LIFE. Scientific textbooks only a few years old are virtually OUT OF DATE today, while the BIBLE has not had to be altered in the last degree over THOUSANDS of years since it was written."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that the Bible has remained unchanged for thousands of years I believe just discredits its reliability and accuracy; obviously, it hasn't had any new proof uncovered about God since thousands of years ago. On the other hand, science has new facts uncovered every day, proving one theory after a next. That fact that science textbooks are so quickly outdated strengthens the fact that it is important to learn science over religion, as religion cannot be proven anymore. Humanity created religion to make itself sane, and to answer unanswered questions, in the age of science, many of these questions are answered, but people are too scared to get rid of these religions to accept these answers. In this context the Bible is just out of date.

(6) "Why should one doubt a Book that has withstood the centuries, and every attack leveled against it, for sciences that have to be revised every few years?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you trying to say that the Bible is the only book that has withstood centuries? Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" has been around since November of 1859, more than 150 years ago, and yet it directly disproves the theory of creation in the Bible, which is what you are using as your main point when trying to argue that God exists.

(7) "Because nothing is permanent except God, science changes, but the Word of God do not..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again, you are using this as if you know God exists, which you have provided no proof for. I also believe that this discredits your argument again; the Bible has been around for thousands of years, yet no other proof has come forward to support it.

I thank my opponent for the debate, but because he provided no legitimate proof that God exists, which was the basis of the debate, I urge you to vote for me.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Bp, this debate is to expose flaws in religion, and therefore, it has a point.
Also, it is to improve probability in atheism's favor.
And, you are right, there is no purpose for anyone. Too bad, not so sad. I laugh at humans. :D
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Bp, this debate is to expose flaws in religion, and therefore, it has a point.
Also, it is to improve probability in atheism's favor.
And, you are right, there is no purpose for anyone. Too bad, not so sad. I laugh at humans. :D
Posted by bpv1 6 years ago
bpv1
Existence or non existence of God can neither be proved nor be disproved. All the discussions and debates and can lead us to some statements which we term as conclusions to our stand.

If God exists, He is undoubtly the creator of everything existing, and the supreme intelligence behind all the structure and order in the universe. Here our finite intelligence will undoubtly be insufficient to explain the absolute in the relative terminology we have and prove His existence.

If God Does not exist, the universe is a product of chance, all the existing life emerged out of biological accident and so there is no purpose for your existence and no meaning for this discussion/debate.

With the relative use of terms and language we have, we can only strengthen our position of Debate/Discussion.
Posted by sqr47 6 years ago
sqr47
I have to agree, obviously zabrak was biased in his voting
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
If you voted for Tahraque, you're obviously a hardcore fundamentalist Christian. -.-" This debate shouldn't be here, the Pro side is so stupid.
Posted by Awed 6 years ago
Awed
What a disappointing debate.
Posted by sqr47 6 years ago
sqr47
Which is kind of weird because on his profile it says that his religion is Atheist...
Posted by sqr47 6 years ago
sqr47
I'm honestly waiting for him to post some undeniable proof that God exists, one more round.
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
Where's the humanity!
Posted by CrysisPillar 6 years ago
CrysisPillar
Where are the reasoning and evidence?
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by hprulz 6 years ago
hprulz
TAHRAQUEsqr47Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Vote Placed by Dingo7 6 years ago
Dingo7
TAHRAQUEsqr47Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by surfride 6 years ago
surfride
TAHRAQUEsqr47Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by sqr47 6 years ago
sqr47
TAHRAQUEsqr47Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by sammyc96 6 years ago
sammyc96
TAHRAQUEsqr47Tied
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:34 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
TAHRAQUEsqr47Tied
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 
Vote Placed by thejudgeisgod 6 years ago
thejudgeisgod
TAHRAQUEsqr47Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by 11rwegan 6 years ago
11rwegan
TAHRAQUEsqr47Tied
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 
Vote Placed by racketguy 6 years ago
racketguy
TAHRAQUEsqr47Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by zabrak 6 years ago
zabrak
TAHRAQUEsqr47Tied
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