The Instigator
Girraffegirl
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Conservative101
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

God Doesn't 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 5 votes the winner is...
Conservative101
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 733 times Debate No: 56562
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (5)

 

Girraffegirl

Pro

I don't believe in god for various reasons and one of which is that evolution has already been scientifically proven. Scientists have proven this and religious people don't believe in evolution because that would rule out the theory of god. The theory of evolution is no longer a theory, but a fact. One link to this fact : http://www.notjustatheory.com... , and : http://www.talkorigins.org... . and on a more funny note :
Another point I feel I must make is that if god did exist then why hasn't there been any hardcore evidence? You want evidence of ghosts? Well, sorry that's tough, ghosts are a skepticism, but shouldn't and isn't god too? Nobody can necessarily prove god exists. Same with ghosts, mythical creatures, etc. Why? BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE!!!! Though many argue that "god created our world", and "the 'evidence' is all around us", and "if god didn't create this Earth who did?" . Oh I don't know SPACE! Rocks, and fire and elements slamming into each other and becoming a part of the orbit around the sun!!!!! Another point I have, is that the bible, if you think about it, is just like a folktale, a story stretched for SO many years. Come on! A serpent, only two humans, a tree you can't eat from? Or virgin Mary wasn't a virgin! She made all that angel crap up so that she could get popular and have something to rub in all the other women's faces! Sins were made up to keep people from doing 'bad' things. Heaven and hell were made up to give relief to people, so they feel as though good people will be rewarded someday, and that bad people will be punished by going to hell. The power of the human mind. We constantly are trying to make logical explanations for the happenings in our daily world, it all makes sense if you think. I don't think believers in god are stupid, or weird, or anything of that nature, so why should religious people be mad at me? Our world is so driven by religion, that once in school, we had to write our favorite quotes on the board. Mine was something like, : "i'm and atheist and i'm upset that just by speaking my truth, 90% of the population is offended." My teacher was perfectly fine with it when we turned our quotes in the day before on index cards, but the next day, writing it on the board, along with everybody elses , she was fine, that night was open house, we didn't go, but when I came back the next morning, my quote wasn't there, two different ones were in there places. I strongly believe god doesn't exist.
Conservative101

Con

God: The omnipotent being who is the grounds and creator of our universe.

Evolution Does Not Disprove God

My opponent has brought up evolution, which she supposes that it in itself disproves that there is a divine creator. However, she has yet to provide evidence that evolution itself shows that there is no God. Charles Darwin himself was an agnostic; he never denied the existence of God. He only believed that evolution was the means of how life organisms have evolved over time. There are also many theists who believe in evolution and in God, so my opponent cannot claim that all religious people don't believe in evolution.

Evolution only explains how life organisms have transitioned from one species to another. It doesn't explain or show the origin of life; only the transition of it. So I ask my opponent, is it not plausible to say that life originated because of a divine creator? Life would've have to have suddenly "appeared" from non-life. The Earth in its earlier stages, before life came to be, had and atmosphere of carbon dioxide and ammonia, meaning that if life first appeared on this planet, it would've come as a combination of those two molecules. There is no evidence for this yet. Scientists have attempted to create life by mixing amino acids, but have been met with disappointment.

Evidence & Reasoning

My opponent brings up also the evidence case for God. I agree that there isn't much strong scientific evidence for a God, but there have been rational arguments based on reason alone that support his existence.

First, I would like to point out that the human perception is limited, filtered through the human senses. We can only see a small part of the light spectrum and can only hear a certain range of sound frequencies. Because our perception is so limited, we cannot detect a higher spiritual nature, but that doesn't mean a higher spiritual realm is nonexistent. We have discovered only what we have of the visible universe through our human input, so claiming that there is no God solely because we cannot see or hear him is ridiculous.

Also, there is the cosmological argument which that states that everything inside our universe has a cause, and every cause has an effect. Pro has stated that space is a valid cause for the creation of the universe, but she has not addressed the cause of the universe itself. The universe cannot be its own cause, so what is its origin? Here I would say that the cause is a divine creator, which is plausible, but there is a possible objection: what caused God? My answer would be that God is outside the universe, like an author is outside a novel, so the cause-effect rule would've come with the universe, created by him. Therefore, the rule would not to him, so he would not need an original cause.

Miracles

Pro addresses a few certain miracles that are told of in the Bible, so I will now discuss those. Although it is true that miracles do violate science, science is nothing more than the study of the empirical universe through observation and experimentation, and has been proven erroneous and wrong many times before. In order to prove that a scientific law is absolutely correct, we would have to test it an infinite amount of times, because there is always that chance that a certain test will not follow that law. Miracles would be that exception, so to say that they were made up without any valid evidence or reasoning is a baseless assertion.

Relief

Again, the claim that heaven and hell were made up is unsupported. Yes, is it plausible that heaven could've been made up to give relief to people, but what about hell? Why would Christians make up a place that dooms you for eternity? By this I will assume that my opponent is trying to make the argument that Christianity was created to satisfy desires, so let's change the perspective and assume that Christianity is right and atheism is wrong. Atheism provides a hiding place for those who do not want to acknowledge and repent of their sins. If God does not exist, then that means sins are not terrors to overcome but pleasures to enjoy. Greed and selfishness are okay, and so are many other wrongdoings. So if we look at atheism from that angle, then it too is satisfying people - people who do not want to face judgement for their sins.

Debate Round No. 1
Girraffegirl

Pro

Girraffegirl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Girraffegirl

Pro

Girraffegirl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Girraffegirl

Pro

Girraffegirl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Pro possibly learned from this debate: Don't make such strong Burden Of Proof commitments, it makes it easy for the opposition.
Posted by Conservative101 2 years ago
Conservative101
@Sagey

Lol!
Posted by Conservative101 2 years ago
Conservative101
@dawn

Well, I wouldn't win this debate then, would I? ;P
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Hey Dawn, go easy on Con.
He's a Mormon, they are not really allowed to think for themselves.

Though the Mormon mind control techniques are not as dominating or severe as those practiced by Jehovah Witnesses, but Mormons use Mind Control Techniques to keep members just the same.

:-D~
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 2 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
Con, what would happen if you let go of all that you think about god and didn't bother with it anymore?
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
I think Pro made a few mistakes to learn from here!
1: Don't instigate an absolute statement/assertion for the Debate: This gives the Instigator total Burden Of Proof, which is harder to defend for such a rash, positively, not provable statement.

2: Do a little research, as Evolution has nothing to do with disproving God, most Evolution scientists I know of are Christians who support Evolution to the end. They see no conflict.
The only science that can destroy God is neurology, which is discovering that God is not outside the brain, but merely a concept developed within, and some day they will know all the pathways/structures that combine to create our personal God concept.

3: There is no possible way to prove anything cannot exist, whether in this world or other worlds (modal logic). All we can conclude is that it is extremely improbable that any God exists in this universe.
So far, the probability that any God exists is below 1%.
So we can be 99% certain that there is no God.
That would have been a better Debate Title, though I would still have Burden Of Proof, but it is not making a statement where I actually have to prove total non-existence of God, which is impossible, I only have to show great uncertainty and my opponent would have to demonstrate certainty of God's existence.

To avoid Burden of Proof one would have to state a BOP statement of "God Does Exist" and go Con. against it, but some will state that it now makes the BOP to the Instigator who is now in opposition so you can still having to provide BOP for non-existence.
Though this is often attempted on DDO to try and inflict BOP on the opposition.

It is better to accept BOP on a probability claim or push BOP onto the opposition also on a probability claim than to make strong assertive BOP claims that cannot be proven and try and make the claim your opponent's responsibility, as it often backfires.
Posted by Conservative101 2 years ago
Conservative101
Agreed. I don't believe in a young earth or universe, since science has proved that wrong. Six days could mean anything, and time is so relative.
Posted by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
Interestingly, Conservative, your opponent rejects the idea that, if God is ALL-POWERFUL, then he could have created new species without the need for evolution. Just saying. However, as I mentioned in the preceding comment, the Earth could very well be billions of years old.
Posted by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
Interestingly, the Bible DOES NOT disprove the theory that Earth is billions of years old, as there must have been a considerable gap between creation and the Flood. Essentially, the Bible states that man eventually became so corrupt that God destroyed all of our race but Noah and his family in a flood of, well, biblical proportions. There is sufficient scientific evidence that this event did indeed occur- indeed, it occurred many times over.
Posted by Conservative101 2 years ago
Conservative101
It did?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
GirraffegirlConservative101Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
GirraffegirlConservative101Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited and Pro could not make good the Burden Of Proof Commitment, Pro lumbered herself with.
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 2 years ago
Phoenix61397
GirraffegirlConservative101Tied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, plus con destroyed pro in the only available round.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
GirraffegirlConservative101Tied
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:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
GirraffegirlConservative101Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF