The Instigator
MCB2700
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
chevybow
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

God Is Real

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 3 votes the winner is...
chevybow
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 702 times Debate No: 69024
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

MCB2700

Pro

I believe that god is real because why would everything about god just be made up? Why would someone write an entire book about a god who created the world for no good reason? God has proved to do many miracles such as bring Jesus back to life when he died on the cross. Take the book "Heaven is for real, A Little Boy's Astounding Story of His Trip to Heaven and Back" written by Lynn Vincent and Todd Burpo. If this child hadn't had a trip to heaven, how would he have known about his little sister that died at birth? There is no other logical way that the little boy could have figured that out. Once again as I bring up the bible, why would someone write an entire book for no reason? someone wouldn't write a book for no reason because books back in 1400 BC were very expensive to make. For these reasons I believe that god exists.
chevybow

Con

I will accept this debate and take on the position of Con. To try and address the questions that Pro has put forth I will lay out three major ideas that correspond with them and wait for Pro to respond to them.

1. Various Different Religions Exist in the World

My point is simple. My opponent in this debate has argued for god inquiring that "Why would someone just make up a book about him?". Yet we see many different religions in the world: Christianity, Islam, Judiasm, Hinduism, and much much more. All the major religions all have their sacred texts. By Pro's logic every religion in the world must be correct. Why would someone write about the Hindu gods if they were false? Why would there be mythology around all the greek/roman gods? The Norse gods? Perhaps we should reconsider whether or not those religions are indeed false. If books exist about a god then that god must... exist? Lets look at my opponents argument on a logical scale.

p1. Writing books takes a lot of time
p2. To invest a lot of time into something means that you wouldn't be making it up.
p3. Sacred text is a collection of books.
c. Sacred text cannot be made up

I recommend my opponent not only to read other sacred texts (for not all gods can be real and at least one of the sacred texts must be false; thus this argument is valid) but also to explore the realm of fiction novels. Lots of people write books about stuff that is not real. Many do so for money, some for various other reasons. Why would someone write a book concerning god? Perhaps they truly believed in god. But a belief does not equal fact.

2. Trips to heaven are lies

I recommend my opponent to look at the following article:

http://www.theguardian.com...

A boy made up a near death experience claiming to have came back from heaven. And you ask why someone would make up books about religion? Here is your example. Now how can you claim the validity of other heaven trip stories? How do you know they are not lying? Here is an example of where it is known that he lied. Others who have cashed in on the money from books like these will obviously not come forward.

3. There is no evidence for the existence of a god.

The burden of proof in this debate lies on Pro. Pro has not proved that god exists. He brought up a mere argument of "Someone wrote a long book; ergo the book holds truth". Sadly the world does not operate in that manner. There has been no recent evidence of god existing in recent years. My opponent brought up something that happened 2000 years ago- Jesus dying on the cross. Is that how far back he has to go for evidence of a creator? Why no evidence now? What makes 2000 years ago so special?

The world functions perfectly without the need for a god. The origin of life can be explained with theories that do not require a god. Many things the bible claimed- like the Adam and Eve story- have been proven false. My opponent may quickly jump and point out "That's just a metaphor!", however why would the author just make something like that up right? There are many things in the bible that have been proven to have never happened. There is still no evidence for the existence of a god. I can get into a philosophical debate about the existence of one, however the only points my opponent brought up includes two pieces of evidence dated way back. I urge my opponent to please present some concrete evidence of a god in the next round of the debate so that I can further this point.

I will end with saying that I have explained the logical errors my opponent initially made and I have countered all his arguments. I countered them through my main ideas: No evidence for a god, there are many religions with equally long books, and many people lied about religious miracles and experiences for money. My opponent did not produce strong evidence, but rather weak claims that are easy to refute.

Your move Pro. Please provide more compelling arguments for me to go against.
Debate Round No. 1
MCB2700

Pro

My argument is in my first round I tried proving god is real, but in reality god does not have to be proved to be believed in.
For my second round I would like to discuss the following topic's

1. In faith, God can be real to any living thing
2. God does not have to be proved in order to be believed in
3. The universe's creation
4. The world having a god

For my first contention I will be stating the first topic, Faith is something that a human being creates, if someone believes in god then they have faith that what they believe is true. Faith is shown in many different ways such as a belief, and in this argument belief is what is causing the problem here. Many books have been written about god, some have not even been discovered yet, but the thing about it is people gather to worship a leader in faith that they believe is real. God cannot be proved to be something that is real, there has been many times in history that have to show that some sort of god is living. Such as when Jesus erected from his grave, and when Noah predicted the flooding, and the sighting of Jesus walking on water. Just because a miracle has not been seen or recorded to this date does not mean that there will be no more miracles to come. People believe that a miracle will happen, and it will happen soon. Look at Joel Osteen, a Christian pastor who hosts radio services. Joel's services are very powerful because he influences what seems to be millions of people with his and their beliefs.

For my second contention I will be stating the second topic. God is a belief that has been known to man for over 2000 years. Belief is something that can influence others into the same belief. Most people often misinterpret theists and Jews and many other religions because they simply ask themselves thing one thing, "If there was really a god, why is the world such a terrible place?" You see, many people ask themselves this question because truthfully, the world is a terrible place. Its full of death and sadness and fear, but the question no one asks enough is "Maybe this is just the beginning." By this I mean the beginning of something greater, something else that has not been shown or proved to humanity. The thing that most people hold is faith that there is something greater and there is something better.

For my third contention I will be stating the third topic. Many atheists say "well if god created the universe, what made god?" This question is unanswerable because we view the universe as infinity when in reality, we do not know if there are boundaries to the universe. The universe is all made up of matter. Without matter there would be no universe. Someone or something must have created matter, who better than a god. A god who is all good and who can do anything. The big bang started the universe, as most of us know, but the thing that no one and not even I know is how was the big bang caused? Something or someone must have caused it. How can nothing, turn into everything? Something had to have happened to make something out of nothing. Many scientist have tried to answer this question and so far have been unsuccessful. What else could have created the universe out of nothing?

For my fourth contention I will be stating the fourth topic. My opponents reasoning is invalid because simply the con is only looking at it from his point of view. If anyone knew what the world would look like without a god, simply we would either all be believing in a god or not believing in anything. My opponent stated "The origin of life can be explained with theories that do not require a god." The main topic of that is saying "Everything could have been created without a god." Well without a god would there be multiple churches world wide, would there be motivational speakers speaking to children the word of god? The answer is simple, No. But if there was no faith and no god to be believed in why is society taking Christianity so seriously? We have pope elections and Priests and Churches to worship god. If no one had faith that there is a god, none of this would be possible.

It is faith and belief that makes a god real, not evidence or proof.
chevybow

Con

I will first logically break up my opponents arguments.

Before I start I will quote their very last line

" It is faith and belief that makes a god real, not evidence or proof."

p1. A strong belief in something equates in that something existing
p2. People have strong beliefs in the existence of a god
c. god exists

To show how absurd this line of reasoning is I will present the following comparison:

Many kids strongly belief in Santa. Strong belief and faith in Santa make him real. Therefore, Santa is real.

Does this make sense at all? Let me go through my opponents contentions. This should be brief.

1. Faith. A term commonly coined by christians and other religious people right? "All you need is faith". However faith does not prove that god is real. Rather it proves that you believe god to be real. This debate is about the existence of god. The title is "God Is Real" not "The belief in god is Real".

2. God does not have to be proved in order to be believed in. I find this contention ridiculous and the reasoning behind it more ridiculous. I agree that many people wish there was a purpose to life. However just because you want something bigger than this life doesn't mean that the thing exists. We find more illogical reasoning here.

p1. What people desire is the truth
p2. People desire there to be a god
c. god is truth.

Again- Just because I strongly desire santa to be true doesn't mean its true. Just because I desire my dead friend to come back to life does not mean it will happen. Religion is often used as a mechanism for many to cope. My opponent has proved this through his reasoning.

3. The universe's creation. This is nothing more than the god of the gaps. We do not know what caused the big bang or for that matter what caused the beginning of everything. What caused the beginning of the universe? We don't know? Oh lets just say god did it! This is absurd and only raises more questions. What created god? What created the thing that created god? You get into an infinite loop of causes with no origin. If something as simple as our universe cannot be explained fully- then why answer the question of the origin of the universe by adding on a much more complex question by bringing in a god. It gets more complex when you bring in the christian god- who cares about your internal thoughts, your sin, what you do with your genitals. The same christian god who is all powerful and all knowing yet could not know of a better way to forgive than to come down and have himself tortured. My opponent does not provide an answer to questions that science cannot answer. Rather he fills in the gaps with god- adding only more questions to a complex issue.

4. god. This whole contention seems to argue something completely different. I do not deny the fact that people have faith. Faith is not knowledge. People can belief in magic and fairytales and god all they want. The title of this debate is God Is Real not "God is believed to be Real".

I end this round with stating that my opponent totally ignored my initial first two arguments and rather than provide evidence for the existence of god which would go against my third- he simply says that proof is not needed for the existence of god. If you claim that god is real then you should prove god is real. It seems as though my opponent is unclear about his own position in this debate. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Until my opponent provides that evidence- then there is no reason anyone should believe that god is real.
Debate Round No. 2
MCB2700

Pro

Wait Santa's not real? (I'm joking)

In this argument I would like to summarize all my arguments.

In my first argument I was explaining logical explanations of why god would be real. I stated that it would be ridiculous to write an entire book about a made up person. I also stated that god has shown many miracles such as bringing Jesus back to life when he died on a cross. I mentioned the book "Heaven is for real, A Little Boy's Astounding Story Of His Trip To Heaven And Back" written by Lynn Vincent and Todd Burpo. You attacked this statement by simply saying "its made up" When really you were not the child when he was on the operating table . You simply skipped to conclusions and by saying it was made up for profit.

In my second argument I explained how faith can make a god real. I stated that a human being creates faith, and that if you believe in something, it can be real. Faith does make things real, it was foolish of me to try and prove that god was real when in reality no proof is needed. Everything was made with belief, without it no one would have any courage. Belief is what shows us that we can believe in what we do.

In my third argument I discussed how god is a belief. I discussed this because god is a belief that a man brought to everyone attention as he came down to earth (Jesus). I stated that belief is something that can influence others into the same belief. I also stated why most people discourage religion. You stated that it was ridiculous that belief is what makes something real when it really isn't, most religions rely on belief and faith to make it real.

In my fourth argument I discussed the universe and its creation. I talked about the big bang. I stated that no one knows how the universe became into creation. How nothing turned into something. I had answered it by saying that God had created the universe and he was the one who caused the big bang. But you see, if god created the universe, this means he was alive or functioning or whatever you'd like to call it before time and the functionality of the universe. Which means that god did not have to be created because he was the original creator. Nothing needed to create god because he was already there, Before everything.

In my fifth argument I discussed how the cons reasoning was invalid because his/her reasoning was Invalid, simply because the con was looking through his eyes. I also stated that without gods belief everything would be changed, nothing to look forward to after death, no elections for a pope, none of it would be possible without the belief in god.

These are all my arguments that I made during this debate. One other thing thing before I end my side of the round is that, no I have not been able to prove gods realism, but neither have you been able to prove gods unrealism, the con only stated things against god, nothing to prove god not being real.
chevybow

Con

Let me summarize this debate in my concluding round.

My opponent, in essence , changed the debate from "God is real" to "You can't prove god isn't real!!!". This is a bogus claim. You can't prove unicorns aren't real, Santa isn't real, the list goes on and on. Just because you can't prove something is false doesn't mean it is automatically real. My opponent makes no effort to prove gods existence. All he has done is use the god of the gaps argument (Well what caused the big bang? We dont' know? God must have done it!) and prove that people believe in god. Frankly, I do not care whether or not people believe in god. Many people also do not believe in god. Why would so many people not believe in god? God must not exist right? My opponent has not used any logic in this debate and even admits that he has not proved that god in fact is real in this debate- contrary to the title of this debate.

Now what have I proved in this debate? I have proved that there is no evidence for the existence of god. If there were- my opponent would present it and not make the claim that he can't/isn't able to prove god's existence. Evidence such as ancient text or fake trips to heaven do not count as evidence. The fact that catholics have the vatican does not prove that god exists. These are just facts about life. Yes people believe. At one point in time pretty much everyone believed that the earth was flat. We have since proven that to be false. Just because lots of people believe in something- doesn't make this true. My opponent was unable to prove god's existence because there is no evidence for the existence of god.

The last thing I will say is that my opponent mistakenly believes that it is my duty to show that without a doubt god cannot exist. However- I am not the one making an outrageous claim. Outrageous claim need to be proven in order to be taken seriously- my opponent has not proven anything. What I have done, however, is show that there is no reliable evidence pointing to the existence of god. Lack of evidence leads to a weak support for the argument that god does exist.

And that is when I bring over the question to the folks reading this debate. Do you honestly believe my opponent has proved anything in this debate regarding the fact that god is real? Anything at all? I urge all of you to read through and determine who made more logical sense and who had the stronger arguments. Remember that Pro admitted to not being able to "prove gods realism".

With that I end this debate. Thanks to my opponent for participating in this debate and thanks for all that have read this. I trust that everyone will make the right decision in awarding a winner in this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JP_Hatecraft 1 year ago
JP_Hatecraft
Has anybody here who is saying that matter has to have been created by God ever heard of the virtual particles theory? From Stephen Hawking, look it up. Good stuff.
Posted by UndeniableReality 1 year ago
UndeniableReality
@Esiar
But the big bang is just a theory? /end{sarcasm}
Posted by Esiar 1 year ago
Esiar
@m8

"well if god created the universe, what made god?"
Since God created the Universe, he exist outside of its laws: Including time. Since God exist outside of time, he has no beginning or end, thus meaning that he is not created, since created thungs have a beginning.

Some Atheist say, "Why not skip a step and say the Universe is eternal?", but it was proven the Universe had a beginning in the last century,
Posted by m8 1 year ago
m8
'well if god created the universe, what made god?'

Good question; let's see if you answer it.

'we do not know if there are boundaries to the universe. The universe is all made up of matter. Without matter there would be no universe. Someone or something must have created matter, who better than a god. A god who is all good and who can do anything. The big bang started the universe, as most of us know, but the thing that no one and not even I know is how was the big bang caused'

No, you don't, I guess. Red herrings are beautiful birds, aren't they?
Posted by m8 1 year ago
m8
@Christina: So you just proved God's existence by saying that you don't need to see him to believe him, then as an example you used Santa Claus?
Posted by Esiar 1 year ago
Esiar
God obvious exists.
Posted by EarnSomeRespect 1 year ago
EarnSomeRespect
@christina21

Can't tell if you're trolling or not... Please tell me you are.
Posted by christina21 1 year ago
christina21
Also you don't need to see God to prove he's real seeing isn't the same thing as believing like little kids believe in Santa clause they have no evidence he's real they just believe h
rela
Posted by christina21 1 year ago
christina21
Also you don't need to see God to prove he's real seeing isn't the same thing as believing like little kids believe in Santa clause they have no evidence he's real they just believe h
rela
Posted by christina21 1 year ago
christina21
God is real and I have proof there was a guy who jumped off the golden gate bridge on holy Thursday and survived
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Nicoszon_the_Great 1 year ago
Nicoszon_the_Great
MCB2700chevybowTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The title of this debate is "God is real" and the argument "Something doesn't have to be real for me to believe in it" is uttered by the pro, lunacy.
Vote Placed by philochristos 1 year ago
philochristos
MCB2700chevybowTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The burden of proof in this debate was on Pro, so Con did not need to disprove God's existence. He only need to refute Pro's arguments for God. Pro is probably right that belief in God does not require proof. However, carrying your burden of proof in a debate DOES require you to provide proof or evidence. Pro's argument from faith struck me as being downright bizarre, and I wondered if there was something I was missing. I think Con soundly refuted that argument. Con also refuted the cosmological argument, and Pro wasn't able to defend it against Con's refutation. The only argument that I don't think Con did a good job of refuting was the argument from miracles. But Pro didn't really demonstrate that the miracles actually happened. He just asserted that they did. So Con didn't really have much to refute.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 1 year ago
Paleophyte
MCB2700chevybowTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's reasoning became tangles in his belief. While sincerely empassioned, his arguments weren't terribly rational. Con capitalized on this handily for the win.