The Instigator
azander1
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

God does NOT exist

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,207 times Debate No: 15601
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (6)

 

azander1

Pro

I would like someone to challenge me on this debate, My stance is that god does NOT exist.
socialpinko

Con

I thank my opponent for posting this debate. To be honest, religion based debates are my favorite kind though I usually argue from the opposite position.

I will take the liberty to define the main parts of the resolution.

God: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe[1]

Exist: To have actual being; be real.[2]

I sincerely hope that these definitions will be satisfactory to my opponent. Now as my opponent has initiated this debate, he as the burden of proof and as such I will await his opening arguments.

____________________________________________
[1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
azander1

Pro

Thank you for accepting this challenge. I am new to this site so I'd like you to take it a bit easy on me, (not meaning you should go easy in the debate, but bear with me if my arguments aren't exactly how you guys do it here).

The definitions you present are fine, but I would like to add that some religions do not believe in a "being" per se, so I'd like to add the definition of the possibility of god being 'energy' in accordance to new age religions like scientology etc.

For my first argument I would like to speak about the lack of evidence of this 'god'. During the course of history there has been no SIGNIFICANT evidence showing the existence of a deity or any supernatural force in this universe. Science has been used to explain almost everything, and what has not been explained now will be explained in the future. Now before you attack me on this point, let us go back to the ancient days, when man did not know how or where the rain came from...he said it was the rain god and offered sacrifices to this god in exchange for rain. Fast forward thousands of years, and science has explained how rain is formed. It is the same issue today. We may not know how or why the big bang was started however we are confident that advances in science will be able explain all these unanswered questions in due time, and it would be extremely stupid o attach a 'god' label to everything we don't understand.

Secoondly, I would like my opponent to try praying. We pray sincerely, knowing that when God answers this completely heartfelt, unselfish, non-materialistic prayer, it will glorify God and help millions of people in remarkable ways.
Will anything happen? No. Of course not. Now i do not wish to attack christianity per se, but it is the religion which mostly adorns prayer. These so called 'miracles' that we see happening everyday is nothing but a hodgepodge. Euphoria, mind over matter are just some of the things that actually happens when people are 'healed'. Now before you start attacking me on this matter, ask yourself this......"why doesn't god heal amputees?" We see many people being 'healed' of cancer and diseases that are not necessarily visible, but we never see an amputee receive a new leg or arm.

(I'm not sure if i should state all my arguments at once or what....so I'll just leave those two for now)

I will end my points with this popular quote from epicurius (341-270 B.C)
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
socialpinko

Con

"The definitions you present are fine, but I would like to add that some religions do not believe in a "being" per se, so I'd like to add the definition of the possibility of god being 'energy' in accordance to new age religions like scientology etc."

The concept of god being energy is in contradiction to my definition of god which you have accepted.

"God: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe"

My definition describes god as a perfect being. This would be in accordance with moral principles put forth by the god which implies sentience. You have accepted my definition of god so you may not use your example of god being 'energy'. Religions who define god in a different way from the definition I added will not be debated here.

1.)Lack of evidence

This argument may support weak atheism, or one disbelieving in god, but it comes far short of defending strong atheism, the position where one definitively states that god does not exist, which is what you are defending. this argument does not apply to the resolution and as such may be discarded. Also, your point that one should not believe in god simply because we cannot explain natural phenomena is not really relevant. Until one can prove that the big bang was definitely not caused by god, one may be justified in using god as a viable option for the causation of yet unexplained phenomena.

2.)Praying

"I would like my opponent to try praying........Will anything happen? No."

To summarize this argument, my opponent merely takes prayer as an example of religious faith and tries to refute it. Now as my opponent did not bring any evidence or examples to show that claims of answered prayers are "hodgepodge" we may discard this argument.

However, even if my opponent had disproven claims of answered prayers, that would not disprove the existence of a god. It could simply point to a malevolent god who does not care about the well being of people. Or it could imply that a benevolent god merely chooses not to answer a prayer as to answer it would be detrimental to the religious devotee.

3.)Problem of evil

My opponent ends the round with providing the so famous problem of evil. My opponent has not actually provided an argument here but has merely posted a quote. Also, as aforementioned, humans could have simply misinterpreted the morals of god. Our entire understanding of what is moral could be fabricated but that does not positively disprove the existence of god. It could point to god being malevolent or a human error in understanding god.
Debate Round No. 2
azander1

Pro

Thank you for responding my friend, for playing the devils advocate your counteractions are exceptional.

"The concept of god being energy is in contradiction to my definition of god which you have accepted.
God: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe"

I was simply offering an alternate definition as some persons' god is what they say to be 'energy' and not an actual person, but ok lets discard that definition for this debate.

1. "Until one can prove that the big bang was definitely not caused by god, one may be justified in using god as a viable option for the causation of yet unexplained phenomena."
Until one can prove that the big bang WAS caused by god, one may justified in using SCIENCE as a viable option for the causation of yet unexplained phenomena.
In the words of Richard Dawkins "It is not up to to atheist to disprove the existence of god, but for theists to prove his existence."

2. "To summarize this argument, my opponent merely takes prayer as an example of religious faith and tries to refute it. Now as my opponent did not bring any evidence or examples to show that claims of answered prayers are "hodgepodge" we may discard this argument."
There is alot of evidence I can point to which definitely highlights prayer as "hodgepodge" superstitious nonsense, and once again we turn to science for the answers(as we always do):
A study was done to show the effectiveness, or lack therof of prayer. In the study, the researchers monitored 1,802 patients at six hospitals who received coronary bypass surgery, in which doctors reroute circulation around a clogged vein or artery.

The patients were broken into three groups. Two were prayed for; the third was not. Half the patients who received the prayers were told that they were being prayed for; half were told that they might or might not receive prayers.

The researchers asked the members of three congregations — St. Paul's Monastery in St. Paul; the Community of Teresian Carmelites in Worcester, Mass.; and Silent Unity, a Missouri prayer ministry near Kansas City — to deliver the prayers, using the patients' first names and the first initials of their last names.

The congregations were told that they could pray in their own ways, but they were instructed to include the phrase, "for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications."

Analyzing complications in the 30 days after the operations, the researchers found no differences between those patients who were prayed for and those who were not. At least 10 studies have been done in the past 6 years to judge the effectiveness of prayer, and all have turned up with the same results. Now once again you may argue that god possibly is actually malevolent, or does not have to 'prove' himself through these scientific studies, but facts are facts. You are entitled to your own set of opinions,, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts.
socialpinko

Con

1.)

"Until one can prove that the big bang WAS caused by god, one may justified in using SCIENCE as a viable option for the causation of yet unexplained phenomena."

I was not stating that one must believe in god as the source of the big bang, only that it has not yet been proven that god was not the cause, so one may choose to believe that if one wishes. After that you try to shift the burden of proof from you to me. You are the instigator and pro in this debate and are the one who challenged me. In this debate, you have the burden of proof and it is up to you to prove god does not exist. I do not have to prove that a god exists, I must merely refute your own arguments.

2.)

My opponent at this point responds to my challenge to show that people's prayers going unanswered proves there is no god. This has not been done. I noticed in the example of the study you provided the only people praying were Christians. The Christian god might not exist, but that does not disprove the Greek or Muslim gods.

You also have not shown that god could not simply be malevolent so we can assume you have conceded this argument. Why can't our vision of god be incorrect? You may be able to disprove a benevolent god according to our own standards but might the standard that has traditionally been attributed to god be incorrect?

There is not complete agreement on the moral code of the Muslim, Christian, or Greek gods. So your contention that if god were 'perfect' ,in the sense of my definition, he would act in a traditionally benevolent manner is faulty.

You have also not responded to my refutation of the problem of evil so it may be assumed that the point has been conceded. You also did not provide a source for your example of the prayer study so it may automatically be discarded. If I'm not mistaken though I believe I recognize that study from the book, 'The God Delusion'.
Debate Round No. 3
azander1

Pro

azander1 forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

Simply extend all of my arguments.
Vote Con
Debate Round No. 4
azander1

Pro

azander1 forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

Another unfortunate forfeit from my opponent. I urge voters to vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
Rougefox, Azander is the instigator, pro (ie asserting a positive resolution) and did not define who had the bop allowing pinko to do so in the first round. He then forfeited two rounds and you still give him conduct?!
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by jewgirl 5 years ago
jewgirl
azander1socialpinkoTied
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 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: F.
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
azander1socialpinkoTied
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 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: Via forfeit
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
azander1socialpinkoTied
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: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by boredinclass 5 years ago
boredinclass
azander1socialpinkoTied
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: Pro forfeit
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
azander1socialpinkoTied
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 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: Pro contested the definition of God, then con claimed he accepted it. Pro quoted the Argument from Evil, but Con claimed it was not an argument. A quoted argument is still an argument. Pro forfeited, but I'll leave conduct a tie due to Con's poor conduct. Nonetheless, Pro did not meet the burden of proof. As Con pointed out, Pro did not overcome weak atheism.
Vote Placed by RougeFox 5 years ago
RougeFox
azander1socialpinkoTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Instigator and pro tried to shift the burden of proof in the 3rd round so conduct goes con and, thus, arguments also go con because pro didn't fulfill his burden.