The Instigator
mattwalsh
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ufcryan
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

God Is Not Real

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 1 vote the winner is...
ufcryan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 532 times Debate No: 34994
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

mattwalsh

Con

Hopefully my Blog will help you understand there is no such thing as God. Please leave your comments on my Fan page, where I will see them.

http://pmme2.info.tm...
ufcryan

Pro

Thank you mattwalsh for starting this debate, I hope the readers find the arguments we each present to be constructive.

You did not provide a definition for what God is, so I propose the following definitions:


Theistic God: A supreme being and Grand Creator who is:

1. All Good
2. All Knowing
3. All Powerful

Deistic God: A supreme being and Grand Creator who is:

1. All Knowing
2. All Powerful

A deistic god may still be all moral, but this cannot be asserted. The theistic God refers to the God that is believed to exist by most Churches, such as the Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, etc.

My Arguments:
Now I will actually be arguing from the position of the agnostic. I believe it is just as fallacious to assert that God is Not Real as it is to assert that God is most certainly Real.

I ask you, what evidence do you possess that makes it scientifically impossible for God to exist? Do you possess any evidence that makes it logically impossible for God to exist? If you cannot provide evidence that it is impossible for God to exist, you cannot rationally claim God does not exist.

The advent of science and the immoral acts of previous churches may or may not give you justification to begin disbelieving in the possible existence of a God, but I argue there is no evidence that disproves his existence. Rather, if we argue that it is unlikely we could randomly come to exist, then it is likely a God exists. This does not prove God's existence, it simply makes it more likely.

Problem of Defining Existence
Additionally, what it means for something to exist could also play a potentially large role in this debate. If our thoughts possess certain amounts of existence, then God will exist in many people and it will not exist in others. If need be, I could get into how Rene Descartes proved God's existence because he exists in our thoughts. All this depends upon our definition of what it means to exist, which can get extremely tricky to define.
Debate Round No. 1
mattwalsh

Con

Look at your argument... If your statement was a shoe, it would fit on the other foot. You can't claim God exists within everyone, because that's not the image society paints of God; it's not the image Religion paints of God. God is the creator of all things... The giver of life... The reason everything we know of, exists.

If you go outside society's scope of God you have in fact created yet, another God, your own God. When I say God does not exists, I do mean the God which lay within the scope of what society has adopted through Religion.

Rather it be the Bible or the Koran... God is seen as a substance and he is not see as an empty intangible. If you read my Blog carefully, I have made points that prove God as society knows him and Religion defines him, does not exists.

The belief in such a being that is false is a burden mankind does not need.
ufcryan

Pro

Given my philosophical studies I would disagree with you about if we create a God within us then that is a different God than the creator. But nonetheless let's work with what you've said.

In your blog you seem more like your arguing against the religion due to its consequences rather than disproving God. As an agnostic I'm inclined to agree that the supposed experts on its existence may be interpreting its message incorrectly, given the strong moral intuitions we have against many of the demands it seems to make.

However let's debate over your definition of God. "God is the creator of all things... The giver of life... The reason everything we know of, exists."

What evidence do you possess which makes it impossible for such a being to exist? What makes it impossible for there to have existed a grand creator who organized the universe to permit life?

Next, the most frequently given argument for evil is the free will defense. Personally I am a utilitarian, so I argue that morality is either man-made or all religions have gotten morality wrong. However I can still argue against your points.

Assume some religion, say Christianity, is the correct religion. How could a Christian God permit evil to exist? Only God is a perfect being, and all imperfect beings are fallible. We can only be so good, because if we were infinitely good we would be God. Perhaps God made us as perfect as it can such that we could promote the most good could we possibly can as fallible beings. This may not seem like we are promoting very much good, but perhaps its the most God could possibly create us to possess. As a result, God gave us the free will to promote as much good as we freely could choose to without making us more perfect than God.

Now you, as most atheists do, have a problem with what has resulted of organized religion. So consider this, Catholicism has admitted to being wrong in their interpretations of God in the past. It is prudent to be wary of trusting someone who has deceived you even once, let alone Catholicism which has admitted to many instances of error (crusades, Galileo, witch burning, etc.). Therefore it is unlikely that Catholicism is the correct interpretation of God.

If we take this a step further, I can argue that actually all religions have misinterpreted God. We have finite minds where God has an infinite mind. A finite mind cannot fully comprehend a infinite mind or its word, therefore all religions are incorrect because we are physically incapable of correctly interpreting God. This does not mean God does not exist, nor does it mean there is not a correct interpretation. If you are taking a test and you simply are not smart enough to get the correct answers, this does not mean there are no correct answers.

In conclusion, we have reasons to disbelieve the words of preachers, we have reasons to doubt the morals perpetuated by organized religions, but we do not have the right to rationally claim God does not exist.
Debate Round No. 2
mattwalsh

Con

mattwalsh forfeited this round.
ufcryan

Pro

I don't know if my opponent had some problems with getting on debate.org, so I'll extend all my arguments to the next round. If he chooses to forfeit a second round however, I do believe its fair to consider that a forfeiture.
Debate Round No. 3
mattwalsh

Con

mattwalsh forfeited this round.
ufcryan

Pro

I believe my opponent has forfeited. This post is just to move the debate along.
Debate Round No. 4
mattwalsh

Con

mattwalsh forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
Change the voting period to three days and I will accept.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
mattwalshufcryanTied
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