The Instigator
nateriverx
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
LightC
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

God Is Real

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 1/27/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,805 times Debate No: 6659
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (5)

 

nateriverx

Con

For this I would like to correspond this conversation to that of the Christian Religion.
Christians say that there is a god and the proof is in a book. Wow...a book...How can they know that the book wasnt written by a group of people in a room trying to further their religion? The normal response from them would be: This cant be because all the ideas focus on diffrent things yet somehow correlate to the same event. Well then how about one person in a room? There are many ways that someone can create a religion and write some book speaking about how all these magical things happen.
Next, they would speak about all these miracles that happen. Wow turning a river to blood. Science has proof that this happened due to an eruption from a volcano miles away in which the fumes and other toxics went into the water, thus reappearing near villages, and then a christian would say that god killed the children that were the oldest. The child who is the oldest sleeps closests to the floor so when the fumes and toxics are released they are usually the only ones effected. There is a way to solve every problem located in their "book."
This is the end of my Opening Statement.
LightC

Pro

I'll go through my opponents opening argument, then move to mine.

My opponent says that he wants to focus on the Christian God, however the topic of debate is "God Is Real", doesn't say the Christian God is real, thus my only obligation is to prove that a God does indeed exist.

Summary of opponents case + responses:

1. The Bible

He claims that Christians claim that the Bible is proof of God's existence.

--> I argue that the Bible is an externality of God's existence, but it does not prove his existence.

--> Even if you don't but that argument, I would argue that his logic can be applied to anything. For example, my science textbook says that the earth is made of rock. Ok, how do I know that from just reading a book? For all I know it could be made of cheese.

3. Science disproves Miracles

E.g. River turning into blood. Due to volcanoes and toxins.

--> For arguments sake I will defend this from a Catholic perspective. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, God is omnipotent, but still bound to his creation's laws. This is confusing, but in short omnipotence is not the ability to do whatever, but the ability to whatever within boundaries. Link this to the river turning into blood. Yes, it was because of a volcano, but that doesn't disprove God's intervention. Miracles are merely God's intervention with nature and science. Furthermore, my opponent concedes that something of that nature did happen. Ok, I would say the timing was quite appropriate. Furthermore, remember the crossing of the Red Sea. At that time an earthquake and a rockslide prevented the water from flowing. Again, natural, but a timely intervention of God.

[Case]

I affirm: God Is Real

I'll make this short, in syllogism form.

Syllogism A

A. Everything that exists has a beginning.
B. The Universe exists.
C. Thus, the universe has a beginning.

Syllogism B

A. Science is the governing natural law
B. Science is bound by its own laws
C. Science in its present form cannot create anything new (E.g. Law of Thermodynamics #2)
D. Thus, science cannot explain the beginning.

Syllogism C

A. God is atemporal and aphysical
B. Since science is subordinate to itself, something beyond the natural is needed
C. Therefore, God is that being.

Final Conclusion: God is needed for the creation of the universe, thus our existence as a universe proves his existence.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Debate Round No. 1
nateriverx

Con

Ahh..My Opponent makes some good points and breaks down my statements to make them seem useless.
Science does indeed disprove Miracles, but just because something happens at a time in which is good for someone's use doesnt mean it was done by some external being. The fact that a volcano errupted and in turn a river miles away turned red does not mean that some "God" used nature to do his bidding. If thats the case, does this mean that his bidding is to kill people all over the world? This proccess happens in random places near inactive volcano's around once every fifty years.
As to your idea's that (:A. Everything that exists has a beginning. B. The Universe exists. C. Thus, the universe has a beginning.:) This is true but it being a fact that due to its own existance, a external being must have made it, that does not neccassarily have to line up. Ever heard of the Big Bang Theory? In the begginning, there was darkness, then slowly, atoms and began to form. As they began to form, they made up two parts of the known Element Table. After many of what we of the now, call years, the atoms multiplied and evolved, and after many of what we call Billions, of years, there was many elements and some began to react with each other, due to this imbalance, they began to implode upon themselves. When the implosion was complete, the now destroyed atoms began to fuse with other destroyed atoms and shot out across the darkness. Then, after a few more billion years, planets and suns were made. This is part of the theory which describes how the universe came to exist.
Now, on to your Science comments.
Science is "ever-changing" so if you look in every corner you can find everything can be shown if you turn to science.
Sorry for that extremely short answer, but i am running low on time so I will try to finish my point.
My Opponent stats that God is atemporal and aphysical. That is to say, if there really is a god then he would have to be of that sense to have such things made about him without being around for people to see. Some people that say they see god and then they get put into some kind of medical facility and are usually found to have some kind of illness: mentally or physically.

As for your Final Conclusion "God is needed for the creation of the universe, thus our existence as a universe proves his existence." I have to say that science proves the creation of the universe could happen naturally, and thus a naturally formed universe would destroy your point.

God is just the thing people think of or "see" when they lose someone or something or get "lucky" and have to praise something.
Time for a Rebutle?
LightC

Pro

I'll go through my opponents response, then do any clarification that is needed.

[Summary + responses]

1. Science disproves miracles

--> My opponent makes the point that timing does not make a miracle. Ok, but lets use the source my opponent has used, the bible (Exodus specifically). If the twelve plagues actually happened, but were due to natural causes that does not disprove the fact that it is a miracle. This is true for two reasons:

a. It seems very odd that a people that were enslaved just so happened to be freed because 12 horrible things occurred to the Egyptians. 12 natural occurrences helped a people that prayed for this to happen. That is too coincidental.

b. Definition of miracle: "any amazing or wonderful occurrence." These occurrences were indeed miracle because they were amazing and wonderful to the Israelites.

2. (His attack) Syllogism 1

--> My syllogism 1 does not say that there was a creator, it only proves the point that the universe had a beginning. Proving the part of God comes into Syllogism 3, not 1.

3. Big Bang

--> This only proves my point. The big bang started the unvierse, but how can amtter have been there for an infinite amount of time. This leads us to the conclusion that:

a. All matter had to be created
b. Universe was infinite

a --> Only proves my point that the universe had to have a beginning, but if science was utmost, then there could never be a beginning, because matter can create itself.

b --> Mathematically an scientifically impossible. Time could not exist if the universe was infinite. If time can't exist, matter cannot exist, because they both need each other.

3. Science is ever changing

--> If this were true then science could not answer any questions because it could not be correlated together. Furthermore, it would not be absolute, and thus answers would be relative.

4. Science proves natural creation

--> Science proves that:

A. There was a beginning (This fact we dont dispute)
B. Science is subordinate to its own laws, and thus creation is impossible (he drops this in his rebuttal)
C. Obviously we exist, thus since science cant have "first creation" then the cause for it is beyond the physical, because it needs to be because it needs to be outside the laws of nature.
D. This force we call God.
Debate Round No. 2
nateriverx

Con

Since this is my closing arguement, I will make it short ( plus im short on time, got a job )
I will admit that the fact that twelve natural occurrences helped free the enslaved people. Similar events have happened in history. For example: A tribe of cannibals were captured in order to prevent them from claiming more lives in the name of their blood lust. Three days after their initial capture, a plague came to the capters, claiming over 40 of their people. The cannibals lost nobody. Thus the capters felt that this was a sign that something was wrong with what they are doing so he went to speak to the leader of the tribe. The leader was in the proccess of eating three women that he had just raped. After seeing this the man prayed to his "god" that it wasn't their deaths that were meant. The next morning, it seemed that all the crops had been destroyed during a storm, the culprit was a single, DEEP, burn into the middle of the villages crop ( a lightning bolt had struck ) He prayed to his so called god again that night begging for his life. The next morning, four men found his body burned to the bone with a hole in the top of his head.----- If you think that this was the work of some external being called god then I definately promote scientology, due to the fact that if a being feels the need to kill those who are protecting the world from a menace to society that not only eats humans, but also rapes women before eating them.
Next, just because something seems like a miracle doesnt mean that some external being has done it. The greeks looked to "gods" for everything. Grass grew, PRAISE OLYMPUS. We had a great hunt, PRAISE OLYMPUS. She bore my child, PRAISE OLYMPUS.
People want there to be some external being watching over them so that it seems there is a reason for everything. Is it a miracle when a village full of "christians" get struck down by a freak lightning storm while praising their "god"? Is it wonderful when good people get shot, burn, shatter, DIE for reasons that arent even worthy of bum conversations, while murders and crooks live long healthy lives and rapists impregnate and murder hundreds of young women.
I have already shown you how the universe started in my second statement. However, I will quote it for you"
This is true but it being a fact that due to its own existance, a external being must have made it, that does not neccassarily have to line up. Ever heard of the Big Bang Theory? In the begginning, there was darkness, then slowly, atoms and began to form. As they began to form, they made up two parts of the known Element Table. After many of what we of the now, call years, the atoms multiplied and evolved, and after many of what we call Billions, of years, there was many elements and some began to react with each other, due to this imbalance, they began to implode upon themselves. When the implosion was complete, the now destroyed atoms began to fuse with other destroyed atoms and shot out across the darkness. Then, after a few more billion years, planets and suns were made. This is part of the theory which describes how the universe came to exist, and yes matter can appear in an enviroment in which nothing exists. This was proven in a room called a "safe room" or "clean room" in a hospital. They made the room, cleaned it so no bacteria or anything was their except air, then sucked it all out. The room was not opened, or used for one year straight after being made. After that year, a kid was inducted into the hospital for treatment, and a clean room was deemed neccary. They used a computer to make sure the room was clean before they could put the kid inside. What they found was that oxygen, helium, hydro-menoxide, and other things had formed ( FROM NOTHING ) within the room, over the course of a year.

I am sorry but my time is up. I have to leave for work, so I will end with this. If you are hurt, you want someone to know, someone to hear you, so you cry out and hope someone hears you, people name this god. Just because you want something to happen or someone to be there, or hear you, doesnt mean its real. There is only the figment of hope and dismay to thank for such thoughts. I am sorry for such a...unfullfilled speach but I must leave. Please vote for the one you see as the bestm and I hope that will be me. VOTE CON
LightC

Pro

LightC forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by nateriverx 8 years ago
nateriverx
i was on a debate team in all of my elementary school an middle school years
twas fun... but my highschool doesnt have one so i joined the track team instead-an RoTC
my first year in track i got a gold medal an my school got second in state :)
Posted by LightC 8 years ago
LightC
its so much fun. ^^ Love it.
Posted by nateriverx 8 years ago
nateriverx
Internation circuit debate...sounds interesting
Posted by LightC 8 years ago
LightC
To Skeptic: lol, every time you challenge me, I'm at a national circuit debate tournament, and thus have no time.
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
"Please inform me how a God who is omnipotent is subject to the laws of His creation?"

Perhaps you didn't read the debate yet. LightC was linking the definition of omnipotence to the river turning into blood.
Posted by LightC 8 years ago
LightC
grr, damn these 24 hour timing limits. Anyway, good debate.
Posted by nateriverx 8 years ago
nateriverx
ahahahaha
thats a good point lol
Posted by Yuanti 8 years ago
Yuanti
Oh Diablos? Please inform me how a God who is omnipotent is subject to the laws of His creation? I am quite familiar with the restrictions on the powers of the Christian God but being subject to the laws of nature is not one of them. I would find it troubling in Christians believed this to be true considering the many non-natural feats of their God.
Posted by nateriverx 8 years ago
nateriverx
lol
glad i started this debate
figured he would come due to the fact that all his debates seem on subject lol
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
I REALLY want to debate this with LightC, but everytime I message or challenge you don't respond. What's up man :(?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
nateriverxLightCTied
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 RagingCow 8 years ago
RagingCow
nateriverxLightCTied
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 Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
nateriverxLightCTied
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 nateriverx 8 years ago
nateriverx
nateriverxLightCTied
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 
Vote Placed by TheRaven 8 years ago
TheRaven
nateriverxLightCTied
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