The Instigator
TheSatiricalAnarchist
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
kylekaikiki
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

God Exists

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 1 vote the winner is...
TheSatiricalAnarchist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/1/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 425 times Debate No: 76059
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

TheSatiricalAnarchist

Con

This is an entirely open debate opportunity for any member of this website who would like to take it.

In this debate, I (Con), will be advocating that no God exists, and it will be accepted that the person who chooses Pro logically proves the existence of such in any necessary means.

For the sake of definition:

God
ɡ"d/
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
synonyms:the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
"a moon god"
synonyms:deity, goddess, divine being, celestial being, divinity, immortal, avatar
"sacrifices to appease the gods"

I wish whoever chooses to take advantage of this opportunity luck.

Round 1 will be acceptance only.
Round 2 will be opening arguments.
Round 3 rebuttals.
Round 4 rebuttals/elaborations.
Round 5 closing statements.
kylekaikiki

Pro

I accept, but I noticed you said that there are five rounds, there are only four.
Debate Round No. 1
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Con

Yes, excuse me for my mistake. Round 4 will be the closing statements. Anyhow, onward with the debate.


I. Lack of Evidence

Ideally it doesn't take much to understand that no solid evidence to prove the existence of "God" has actually been provided. Some people claim they had seen "Him" before personally, others openly admit that no evidence exists to suggest the existence of this beyond-our-understanding entity. A very common argument among the religious population [mainly within Christianity] is that faith does not rely on evidence, and that is the miracle of faith. Though this argument still makes no sense. For example, some arguments from the devout are that prayer works if it is not from a place of greed, but from a place of trade [e.g "I will give you x for y]. It is highly illogical to commit oneself to a being beyond their understanding of which cannot be proven. But another big idea is the "seeing is believing" concept, which also adds to the conflict between the theist and atheist populaces. As the religious argue that though you cannot see "God", "He" does exist. And in fact an analogy was made in which the comparison between "God" and air was made; since humans apparently can't see air, but can still feel it. Christians concluded that though "God" cannot be seen, "He" can be felt. Which is absolutely false.

And the very basis of this argument is that because humans feel happy when they pray, or go to a house of worship, or do something the faithful would do, that it is proof that "God" exists because that is the result of having a spiritual connection to "Him". But still the point does not prove the existence of such a being regardless. And the claim that air cannot be seen is beyond ridiculous. Not only can air be felt, it can be seen as well. Such forms as water vapour, steam and gases of different kinds [soot from factories, fire, smoke] are very clearly visible to the naked eye. In fact, tornadoes and hurricanes are the result of contact between hot and cold air in a convection-like process where both intensely cycle, and both are quite literally cyclones made of air - and are very visible.

And even if some people felt happy after praying, or going to a house of worship, it doesn't prove that "God" exists, it just proves that they are getting their hopes up and feeling spiritual. In the same way that some may work themselves up and become sick because of their paranoia, imagination and fear are powerful effects of having a brain, and the faithful often feel them.

II. Creation of Universe

Another common conflict between the two is the question of how the creation of the universe came to be. While most scientists [as well as atheists] theorize that the universe came about through a process called 'the big bang theory', in which a nebulae compromised of material such as copper, nickel, iron, and other solids that molded the planets blew up and produced the universe gradually and over a large span of time. While the theists of the world theorize that a supernatural being had done it. A common counter-claim to the big bang theory is question of where the material to shape the universe came from - seeing as it logically have to have an origin - as the material could not arbitrarily appear. But the theists fail to realize that their plugging in of "God" is doing the exact same thing - and is conceding that the universe was formed by a being whose origin is not known, and thus the counter-claim can be flipped to dismantle either side. However, atheists are more likely to admit that they lack the knowledge of exactly how the universe started, whereas theists are not.

A quick Google search could satisfy the need to see some scientific explanations for the process by which stars explode, form, and other celestial objects undergo the same process, but theists offer a more illogical explanation; one by which a randomly appearing man in space had formed the universe in a matter of a week [or so]. Scientists have worked since the discovery of advancement in astronomical and interstellar equipment to conclude logical statements about the formation of planets, and though the theories have not been 100% proven, they do foot the bill more than the "God" complex.

kylekaikiki

Pro

Before I start my response, I want to mention how I like the way you phrased and organized your response.

First off, I want to mention something in your definition of God. I may be misunderstanding or just not noticing something, so if I am, please let me know.
In the second part of the definition it says
"a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortuned; a diety."

It doesn't say in this specific definition that this being is a physical person. It's just a being or spirit that is worshiped for being a part of nature.

Spirit Defined. (https://www.google.com...)
spir"it
noun: spirit; plural noun: spirits
1.
- the nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.
- the nonphysical part of a person regarded as a person's true self and as capable of surviving physical death or separation.
- the nonphysical part of a person manifested as an apparition after their death; a ghost.
- a supernatural being.
2.
- those qualities regarded as forming the definitive or typical elements in the character of a person, nation, or group or in the thought and attitudes of a particular period.
- a person identified with their most prominent mental or moral characteristics or with their role in a group or movement.
- a specified emotion or mood, especially one prevailing at a particular time.
- a person's mood.
- the quality of courage, energy, and determination or assertiveness.
- the attitude or intentions with which someone undertakes or regards something.
- the real meaning or the intention behind something as opposed to its strict verbal interpretation.

I also want to mention a quote from something you said.
"an analogy was made in which the comparison between 'God' and air was made; since humans apparently can't see air, but can still feel it. Christians concluded that though 'God' cannot be seen, 'He' can be felt. Which is absolutely false."

In my view, the God you believe doesn't exist, doesn't have to be the way people usually view them as. They could just be a spirit, a thought or feeling. When people say they feel God, they feel a spirit (mood, feeling) commonly felt during certain times, in certain places, or with certain people.

When you say God doesn't exist, what do you mean in particular by god?

If you mean the spirit or idea of a God, that wouldn't be true because there are definitely people out there who believe in a God, or multiple God's. Even certain types of satanists believe in a God, they just believe they are their own God.
So in my mind, I don't believe in a physical representation of a god. I think more of a spirit, an idea, a feeling.

Also, have you ever heard of Etymology? I think if you are really interested in the topic and idea of God, believing in or not, I would look it up. It has interesting origins of the word God by itself.

There is a saying, from Voltaire, "If God did not exist, men would have to invent him"
I think that is true, if God, the way you view them as (nonexistent) then they were invented by man, which therefore, proves he exists all on its own.

What do you mean by exist anyway?
Do you mean this God has to be a physical being to exist? Or can God be an idea created by man to give them a focus point on their religion on life? Can God just be a feeling some people have, that make their life easier, and happier?
Debate Round No. 2
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Con

And now comes my share of rebuttals...

"It doesn't say in this specific definition that this being is a physical person. It's just a being or spirit that is worshiped for being a part of nature."

The definition which briefly mentions the word spirits connects 'spirit' and 'diety'. A diety is not an emotion, it is not a feeling. The God in question within this debate is the immortal supernatural being that is thought to have created the universe and be the father of it, be in monotheistic and polytheistic religions - both kind still believe in a main God by which the fundamentals of the faith revolve around.

"If you mean the spirit or idea of a God, that wouldn't be true because there are definitely people out there who believe in a God, or multiple God's."

The questio nis not whether or not people with the concept of God exist, it is whether or not the God spoken of exists or can be proven to exist. In which case, I, as the Con, am denying that God exists based on the lack of evidence. It has nothing to do with whether or not people believe one exists.

"I think that is true, if God, the way you view them as (nonexistent) then they were invented by man, which therefore, proves he exists all on its own."

A fictional concept does not developed literarily by humankind does not necessarily imply that it is a truthful existence. If I were to "invent" a new fictional celestial being called the 'cystoplasmasaur' that inhabited space, does that mean that because I invented the concept that the being in question itself exists? Of course not, if that were the case literally anything babies say when they speak in baby babble would a true creature that exists.

"What do you mean by exist anyway?"

If it was not obvious enough...

ex·ist
iɡG2;zist/
verb
  1. 1.
    have objective reality or being.
    "remains of these baths still exist on the south side of the Pantheon"

"Do you mean this God has to be a physical being to exist?"

Logically yes, otherwise there would be no rhyme or reason to say that God was responsible for the creation of the universe.




kylekaikiki

Pro

kylekaikiki forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Con

Given the fact that pro has forfeited this round. It may be safe to proclaim my victory. Thank you for your participation.
kylekaikiki

Pro

kylekaikiki forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by philochristos 1 year ago
philochristos
You don't have enough rounds to fulfill the format you stipulated. You stipulated 5 rounds, but there are only 4.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Theunkown 1 year ago
Theunkown
TheSatiricalAnarchistkylekaikikiTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins by forfeiture if nothing else.