The Instigator
auzzypao
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Iamthejuan
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

God Exists!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
Iamthejuan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 753 times Debate No: 43111
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (4)

 

auzzypao

Pro

God Exists! Please prove otherwise.
Iamthejuan

Con

Hello!

I will be up front about the fact I am a creationist and a progressive Christian, but not a literalist or "fundamentalist".

That said, I will be arguing to win this debate. Don't worry about me "throwing" it.

Your opening statement is short, so I will begin in the same manner.

"God exists. Prove otherwise."

First, I am an English minor, so I am going to have a little fun with your choice of grammar.

The word "God" was not used until around the 7'th century in Germanic translations of scripture; therefore it did not exist before the point at which it was MADE UP.

If you are referring to the 21'st century concept of "God"-- descended from judaic traditions regarding "Yahweh", the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob --then he can not by definition exist. In order for God to create our universe and laws of physics, God must be something that is completely outside the realm of what we know as existence. From a metaphysical standpoint, the force which caused our universe to originate had to be conscious, but consciousness and existence two different things entirely. We live in a world where all things with consciousness are tangible, but not all tangible things are conscious. The creator might be conscious, but is most certainly not tangible. Whether you look at it scientifically or philosophically, God does not "exist" by very definition of the word.

Notice all definitions use the term "being" or reality".

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Ok, word games are over. I will now state my main arguments against creationism altogether, which I will expand upon as the debate evolves.

1. When you pray, God never answers. In the bible, there were talking bushes and fiery pillars and angelic messengers-- they are very clearly didactic poetry (very useful and valuable literature). Ask God to pay your mortgage for you right now. Jesus said "anything you ask in my name shall be given you". See if it works. And don't say "it is a selfish request". Jesus clearly placed no restrictions on his statement, and home ownership isn't exactly an unreasonable desire.

2. The God whose name you invoke can't exist, because evil exists. You can't be omniscient and omnipotent considering all of the evil and unfairness which exists in this world. If you or I were God, we would wipe all that stuff out. Are you saying we love us more than this loving God?

3. You only believe in God because you were born in America. If you were born in India you might believe in Shivah or Durga; in the middle east, you'll be talking to Allah. Heck, why not just pray to Zeus? You would say none of these God's exist, correct?

4. If I told you I were Jesus Christ's reincarnation, would you just believe me? You would want proof (hopefuly)-- a miracle or something. So when you tell me this magic guy in the sky is passing down rules for us to live by to some old guy thousands of years ago, I have to wonder why God hasn't continuously maintained this level of involvement in humanity. Why not have a blog even?
Debate Round No. 1
auzzypao

Pro

You are exactly the person I did not want to debate with. You took all your time, gave me a long drawn out paragraph, and basically argued over definitions. Mind you that definitions of words are created by humans and are subject to disagreement. God, as known through the Bible and Catholic Church is never dismissed as being unknown at all. This "God" which you are referring to from your definitions would align with agnostic beliefs. I am strictly talking about the Judeo-Christian God, although I did not explicitly cite this in my debate Q. Please answer back with a short concise paragraph in less than 10 minutes, mind you I am not willing to stay up all night debating.
Iamthejuan

Con

Since you didn't really make an argument or respond to mine, I will just reply to you. I will try to make it easy for your short attention span.

"You are exactly the person I did not want to debate with. "
--Im sorry?

"You took all your time, gave me a long drawn out paragraph, and basically argued over definitions. "
I can take all the time you have allotted. If you don't feel like staying up for 3 hours, don't start a debate so late. Or go on and forfeit. Only the first half of my argument was argument of definition, and arguments of definition are perfectly valid; in fact, I just studied them in my English 327 course. If you want to exclude particular lines of reasoning, you need to stipulate this at the onset (just don't accept a high acceptance rate).

"This "God" which you are referring to from your definitions would align with agnostic beliefs."
--How do you figure? PLEASE elaborate.

"I am strictly talking about the Judeo-Christian God,"
-- That was the assumption I expressed and the God I just gave you a history lesson in. You should read more.

"mind you I am not willing to stay up all night debating."
--feel free to go to bed then.

"You are exactly the person I did not want to debate with."
--Someone who actually knows how to debate, even when they are playing devils advocate?
Debate Round No. 2
auzzypao

Pro

You say that by definition the Christian God cannot exist. As you stated "In order for God to create our universe and laws of physics, God must be something that is completely outside the realm of what we know as existence." Like I said definitions are completely objective, and can differ. It does not mean that God cannot be present in this Universe, of course he can.
Now I will respond to your arguments.
1. Please reference what part of the bible you took this excerpt from. God answers prayers, just not in blatant ways such as the burning bush. He slips signs into our lives every day.
2. Evil does not exist. Good and Evil can be represented as dark and light. Darkness is the absence of light, where as Evil is the absence of Good. Temperature is the absence of heat.
3. Of course I defend my faith because I have been raised in it, but I have also questioned my faith and have come to the realization that it is true. Christianity is truth from what I have perceived in life, not just from what I have been raised on. The evidence supporting the bible and my faith is there, as opposed to other religions that lack logical "evidence" to make me believe that their religion is truth.
4. God has maintained a level of involvement in human history. Thousands of years ago he sent his message to Abraham, and faith grew throughout the years. Eventually he reestablished his covenant through Jesus Christ, O Messiah, The Anointed One, The Redeemer. Jesus showed many miracles, and to deny Jesus is foolish. There is enough evidence to say that Jesus was real and performed miracles. Not to mention that his apostles all died for their faith, they were martyrs! THey must have truly believed if they would die for it. Through the years millions have died for their faith and have become martyrs. Thousands of saints have performed miracles, their bodies have not corrupted after death. PROOF. Explain our Lady of Guadalupe. The painting does not contain any materials that come from Earth. Truly amazing. Throughout the past 1960 years or however many years after Christ, God has maintained connection with us through many miracles and saints.
Iamthejuan

Con

Now we're getting somewhere.

"Like I said definitions are completely objective, and can differ. It does not mean that God cannot be present in this Universe, of course he can."

--You are correlating God's presence "in" the universe with existence itself. This is debatable, but I will concede this point because it is rather moot and for the sake of time.

"Please reference what part of the bible you took this excerpt from. God answers prayers, just not in blatant ways such as the burning bush. He slips signs into our lives every day."

--John 14:13 "and whatever ye may ask in my name, I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son;" (Youngs Literal Translation)

Simply saying god subtly answers prayers and sends signs isn't really evidence of anything. Do you accept Joseph Smith's vision of the Golden Plates?

2. If evil does't exist, explain the concept of original sin, or the need for redemption via brutal sacrifice. If God made us all, why did he give some people no good and all evil? Why did he make some people who kill and eat other people? Why did he make us so self-destructive, greedy, narcissistic, and oppressive of one-another? Why do we talk about "satan, the enemy"?

3. You questioned your faith from the perspective of your faith. I did this also, which is how I became a "progressive Christian", whereas I was a fundamentalist until I was 18. This is a bit off topic, but you missed the point entirely; because you have specified which God you speak of, I will now add to my argument that it is scientifically feasible to argue creationism, but impossible to argue the exact character and nature of "God". Your ideas of God are no more valid than Habib's there over in Iran.

4. God sent us all these messages in those stories, but not one word today. If salvation is predicated upon a belief in Jesus, why doesn't Jesus return every century?

Matthew 16:28 -- "Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they may see the Son of Man coming in his reign."

Those people are dead. Either Jesus was lying, delusional, speaking metaphorically, or he didn't say it at all.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Iamthejuan 2 years ago
Iamthejuan
Lol, someone without time or patience would win a debate? Ok...
Posted by atreyusblaze 2 years ago
atreyusblaze
A debate with me, intellectually i would crush you BUT i have neither the time nor the patience to debate such an crude idealogy. You still are the weakest link. good bye
Posted by atreyusblaze 2 years ago
atreyusblaze
A debate with me, intellectually i would crush you BUT i have neither the time nor the patience to debate such an crude idealogy. You still are the weakest link. good bye
Posted by Iamthejuan 2 years ago
Iamthejuan
Atreyusblaze,

feel free to challenge me to such a debate. I will show you how Pro should have made this argument.

Insulting people via comments and spouting your opinion is for Yahoo Answers. You should try there.
Posted by atreyusblaze 2 years ago
atreyusblaze
You both failed horribly. There is no God(s).
Religion is but a passe of intellectual primitivism. It stems from our own ancestral existential curiosity, fears, and dread. It seeks balance in a world unweighted. The Gods are for those who still refuse and deny the self evident absurdity of life! Leaving no room for integrity nor an evolving sense of human dignity while it weaponizes egotism by way of existential insecurity. Good bye you are the weakest links.
Posted by Iamthejuan 2 years ago
Iamthejuan
"Weird debate: Pro restricting Con's responses to Biblical scripture for disproof of God. Highly Irrational, to say the least. "

This is the difference between a "progressive" (anything) and a fundamentalist (anything).
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Weird debate: Pro restricting Con's responses to Biblical scripture for disproof of God. Highly Irrational, to say the least. Magical paintings, garbage, there is no truth to such tripe.

Actually the Old Testament has been proven as Fraudulent, by Jewish Historians (Brave Dudes) and archaeologists. They have shown through evidence or actually lack of evidence, that the Book of Exodus, or Moses leading slaves out of Egypt, never happened, the Book of Exodus is a lie or Fraud, which condemns the entire O.T. to the rubbish bin. So much for the God of Abraham, it too must be a Lie, since the only source for it is the O.T.
Thus Christianity must also be deemed a lie, because it is based on the God of Abraham, so a fraudulent O.T. means a Fraudulent N.T.
They cannot win.
The God of Abraham is a Lie and thus does not Exist!
:-D~, Like my argument?????
Posted by Iamthejuan 2 years ago
Iamthejuan
Key - word "claim". They also don't let many scientists examine it, but the few times they did they identified several of the minerals used, which I mentioned above.
Posted by auzzypao 2 years ago
auzzypao
From Wikipedia "Roman Catholic sources claim many miraculous and supernatural properties for the image such as that the tilma has maintained its structural integrity over nearly 500 years, while replicas normally last only about 15 years before suffering degradation;[52] that it repaired itself with no external help after a 1791 ammonia spill that did considerable damage, and that on 14 November 1921 a bomb damaged the altar, but left the icon unharmed.[53]
Then in 1929 and 1951 photographers found a figure reflected in the Virgin's eyes; upon inspection they said that the reflection was tripled in what is called the Purkinje effect, commonly found in human eyes.[54] An ophthalmologist, Dr. Jose Aste Tonsmann, later enlarged an image of the Virgin's eyes by 2500x and claimed to have found not only the aforementioned single figure, but images of all the witnesses present when the tilma was first revealed before Zum"rraga in 1531, plus a small family group of mother, father, and a group of children, in the center of the Virgin's eyes, fourteen people in all.[55]
Numerous Catholic websites repeat an unsourced claim[56] that in 1936 biochemist Richard Kuhn analyzed a sample of the fabric and announced that the pigments used were from no known source, whether animal, mineral or vegetable.[55] Dr. Philip Serna Callahan, who photographed the icon under infrared light, declared from his photographs that portions of the face, hands, robe, and mantle had been painted in one step, with no sketches or corrections and no visible brush strokes."
Posted by STAGIESTCOSINE 2 years ago
STAGIESTCOSINE
Please provide a reference showing that the painting contains no earthly material, thankyou
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
auzzypaoIamthejuanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Con because of Pro's dismissive second round post. So do sources, because Con cited the sole one. As for convincing, Pro needs to do more than just throw his own faith out there and prove that he believes in God. That's not enough. Your personal belief isn't proof. The points that Con brings forward on every level have validity. If I was going to pull the trigger anywhere, the easiest spots to do so would be Con's #2 and #3. He argues the former very well, and the latter receives a response of "it's wrong because I believe." That's simply not enough. If personal perspective is all that's required, then Con's personal perspective is also valid. Therefore God both exists and doesn't exist based on your beliefs, which also means he wins. It is Pro's burden to prove that God exists, as he started this debate. If there's any non-existence, then he loses this debate.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
auzzypaoIamthejuanTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Firstly I'd give Pro a point if Pro actually cited some sources, as there are many for Pro's side. Pro lost conduct points for attempting to restrict Con to biblical text, which makes Con's task impossible, because a book about God would not provide evidence against God, deliberately, Con fared well under Pro's unfairness. Con was the only one who provided a source. This appeared to be just a debate for the purpose of getting a debate under Pro's account, Thus the lack of willingness for Pro to make any real effort or spend more than 10 minutes. This is to Pro's own detriment, though I doubt if Pro really cares :-D~
Vote Placed by Skepticalone 2 years ago
Skepticalone
auzzypaoIamthejuanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an interesting debate since both Pro and Con obviously believe in God. Con made a more solid case, and was the only one to use sources. Con had better conduct and grammar. I would have like to of seen any sources from Pro, especially supporting the extrordinary "the Lady of Guadalupe" claim. (mostly, because I was interested for my own curiousity..You left me hangin', Pro!) Good Job, guys! It was an interesting read.
Vote Placed by Anonymous 2 years ago
Anonymous
auzzypaoIamthejuanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I am very disappointed just reading this debate. Pro did not address any of cons arguments, event though they are easily defeatable. Con was playing devil's advocate and still made a far better argument. You should not try to debate creationism or any issue really if you don't understand both sides or why you chose your own.