The Instigator
Atheist1096
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Christian_Debater
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

God does NOT exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
Christian_Debater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/6/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 923 times Debate No: 54119
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

Atheist1096

Pro

God is nonexistant cannot be proven to exist by any logical or rational argument
Christian_Debater

Con

I accept this challenge and would like to claim that God is existent and cannot be disproved by any logical or rational argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Atheist1096

Pro

Atheist1096 forfeited this round.
Christian_Debater

Con

Since my opponent forfeited their round, I will wait until the next round before I post any of my arguments. May the LORD GOD bless them.
Debate Round No. 2
Atheist1096

Pro

Alright, first, I would like to apologize for my abscence in the previous round. Hereafter, I guarantee my presence in all the events relating to this debate.

I will immediately begin my argument.
The foremost point that I would like to make, is that it is impossible to prove the existance of an entity that has left absolutely no trace of itself.
If I were to tell somebody that unicorns exist, they would either laugh at me, or ask me how I came to this conclusion. To both of these responses, I will end up explaining an incidence when I saw a unicorn. He may actually believe me. But this somebody will most probably say that I have lied, or that I was seeing things. When I threaten him, that if he did not believe in unicorn, then upon his death, he will be tortured by unicorns for eternity, then maybe, out of fear, he may believe me, or reply with the same brute force.
In fact, there is absolutely no difference between 'God', and the unicorn I descrbed. People have been terorized with these concepts for as long as human civilization has been around.

The concept of a higher power is not acceptable to most people because:

1.There is no physical evidence suggesting that God ever existed.

2. None of Jesus' "miracles" left any evidence either.

3. The Bible we have is probably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God.(Only primitive men would advocate violence, as done in theBible, Quoran, Mahabharata,etc..)

4. Huge mishaps like the Japan nuclear holocaust, H1N1,Small Pox, and AIDS occur without any response from God.

There are also many contradictions in both the new and old testament of the Bible. Jesus is praised to be a Prince on Peace, while on the other hand, God himself advocates violence, in both the new and old testament ofthe bible. All religious scripts are filled with atrocities. No religion is free of this violence. It leaves me dumbfounded to hear that people follow the words of a non-existant entity, that demands faith and refuses to prove it's existance to te world. If blind-faith were to be the basis of criminal prosecution today, then pedophiles, rapists, terrorists would all quote their respective religions and rome free. This is by no means acceptable by anyone living on Earth today.
The only reason why the criminals mentioned above get justice, is because in our hearts, we do not truly believe that a God will punish them by sending them to Hell. Neither do we want them to roam free, which is why the law locks them up.
With these words, I rest my case. Over to the Contender.

REFERENCES:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

http://godisimaginary.com...
Christian_Debater

Con

Welcome back to the debate. I made sure to wait so you still got the opening statement (it's a good thing you put it to 5 rounds).

I will letter categorize my responses to you so they stay organized.

A) There is no difference between God and unicorns.

See, this is an interesting argument. The difference between the two is distinguishable. The reason people believe in God is because the evidence is around us. Some things are just too perfectly intertwined. I can give you a list of examples; such as dung, bees, trees, condensation, etc. So there is evidence to believe in God. People just don't think we exist for no reason. Moreover, on the unicorns part, you can't prove unicorns don't exist either. The difficulty for your argument is to give absolute proof that God does not exist. You can't state unicorns don't exist either, because I can counter your argument by mentioning dinosaurs. Did people think dinosaurs existed before all of the discovered fossils? No. Therefore, how can you claim unicorns don't exist? It's possible we haven't found out any evidence yet.

B) There is no physical evidence to support God existed.

I already addressed this above. People believe, or at least a percentage of people believe in God, because of how fined tuned reality is.

C) None of Jesus' miracles left any evidence.

See, this is irrelevant to the debate, but I understand. The Bible is a history book and cites all of his events. However, even if I state that, it is irrelevant to the point at hand. You have to prove God doesn't exist, not give reasons why people don't believe he exists.

D) The Bible we have is probably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God.

If you can cite this, then that's different. However, none of this proves God doesn't exist. Just because some people claim that God wrote those books (and we can debate if the Bible is the word of God on another debate if you wish) does not mean they are.

E) Huge mishaps like the Japan nuclear holocaust, H1N1,Small Pox, and AIDS occur without any response from God.

Can you prove this? Just because the entire event happened, does not mean God didn't help anybody.

F) The Bible advocates negative things and is contradictory.

First, none of this proves God doesn't exist. Secondly, I'd like to see you cite your evidence from the Bible directly. Thirdly, you talk about jail being useful, then talk badly about Hell? Why do you think Hell exists in the first place? It does the exact same thing as jail does.
Debate Round No. 3
Atheist1096

Pro

Atheist1096 forfeited this round.
Christian_Debater

Con

My opponent's argument can be viewed in the comment section. I am responding to it now. I posted most of what he wrote. His comment will be on the first page of the comment section.

My opponent states, "Firstly, you may talk about a perfect world, but it may not exist. Any entity or object in nature has flaws. There exists nothing in this world that is perfect. Nobody is perfect. So by logic, God is not perfect as you claim Him to be." That is an interesting argument, but it is a slippery slope fallacy. Basically, you are assuming that something perfect has to always create perfect things. I am stating that there are so many perfectly intertwined systems for reality to exist that it is logical to assume God exists.

My opponent states, "The number of people that were killed in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings was 150,000-256,000. Maybe more.
(http://en.m.wikipedia.org......)

The h1N1 flu killed over 18,000 by UN statistics,..... Lets say God helped 1000 people. What did the rest of the thouands of women, children and men do to deserve this. If God can save 1000 people, why not be a good samaritan and save a couple 1000 others." If God exists, we deduct Heaven and Hell exists, correct? Now, we can deduct a few things from the Bible. I would like to refer to Romans 8:29-30:

"29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."(1).

So God already knows what everyone is going to do, etc. What if, the reason God allows these people to die, is so that they enter Heaven? It is understood from Romans that God knows that if they live longer, they could potentially worship idols, etc. So wouldn't it be better if they died sooner than later?

Now, that is just one contention. We have free will. If we did not, then we'd be raped to love God so to speak (forced love is rape). So what I ask is, if he didn't allow us to do what we wanted, then wouldn't we have no free will (dropping the bombs)?

So you're now probably saying, "So if he's so loving, why let them die?" What is the problem with dying if Heaven exists? If anything, I can't wait to go to Heaven. I won't kill myself, because that isn't allowed (we can get into that if you are curious). Moreover, Christians are warned that in the end times you will be persecuted, ridiculed, murdered, etc. for God because people will hate you. God never said it would be easy to enter Heaven. If anything, the Bible consistently states the opposite.

My opponent states, "And Luke 22:36 reads:

36 [Jesus] said to [the disciples], "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag; and the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one." (New Revised Standard Version, NRSV)

From the new testament above, clearly God is advocating violence. Since you asked me to quote. The old testament is full of it too. Im sure you are aware of it. "

I'd like to quote from the same chapter.

First, Luke 22:37, "37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end." (2).

Secondly, Luke 22:48-51, "48 But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?
49 When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.
51 And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him."(3).

So you claim the Bible is advocating violence, yet Jesus himself healed the enemy. Do you think instead of advocating violence, that there is another reason for them to buy the swords?

As for the Old Testament, that is different but I can explain it. It'll take a while though.

Now, this is the end of my argument for now. My opponent didn't address my other refutals, etc. but it's most likely because of his lack of time, etc. So I would ask the voters to not deduct point from my opponent due to him ignoring my refutals from last round. If he does it next round as well, that is different.

Resources:
(1) http://www.biblegateway.com...
(2) http://www.biblegateway.com...
(3) http://www.biblegateway.com...
Debate Round No. 4
Atheist1096

Pro

Thank you for your arguments.You were right,I didnt rebut to your points earlier. But I will do so now.
The physical evidence that my opponent gave for God was "dung,bees,trees,condensation,etc".
But all of this didn't just appear out of thin air(or by the hand of god)as potrayed in the Bible.Life started on Earth 3.5 billion years ago,and they were not humans or birds.They were microorganisms.But the birds and the bees are a consequence of evolution from microorganisms,and not god's direct creations as potrayed in the Bible.
Genesis 1 says:
"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep,and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."
But the big bang theory says, that the universe began 13.8 billion years ago, and Earth was formed only 4.5 billion years ago, after which life began a billion years later. Scientific breakthroughs,like gravitational waves and the Higgs boson point towards this theory.(Read more here: http://edition.cnn.com...)
This clearly contradicts the very first line of the Bible.Does my opponent disaggree with the Big Bang theory?

My opponent pointed out,that the existance of fossils of dinosaurs proves to us that dinosaurs exist.So until we find unicorn remains we cannot prove that uniorns existed.I agree.Since fossils have been brought up,I would like to say that the fossils of dinosaurs contradict the Bible.I would like to quote more lines of Genesis 1
"And God said, Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.And it was so.
.
.
26 Then God said, Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,and over all the creatures that move along the ground"
Now, dinosaurs were part of these 'wild animals',and that the Bible says that the first humans were created on the same day(The sixth day according to the bible).But science has determined that dinosaurs were the dominant living beings on Earth for 135 million years starting from 231 million years ago(http://en.m.wikipedia.org...).The earliest known human remains date to only 7 million years ago.Since no one has found definitive evidence of human remains in the same layers as dinosaurs,we come to the conclusion that humans and dinosaurs are separated by millions of years of time and, therefore, didn't live together.
We cannot prove something to exist without evidence.Lack of evidence for anything disproves it,unless proven otherwise.Since the lack of fossils disproves the existance of unicorns,it also disproves the co-existance of humans and dinosaurs,and in turn questions the credibility of the Bible.

My opponent said, "Basically, you are assuming that something perfect has to always create perfect things."
But Genesis 1 says:
"God created mankind in his own image"
Isnt an image an exact replica?
If God is perfect,why are we humans (his 'images') tainted with jeolousy,violence, etc.You might argue,that I have misinterpreted the lines and an image is not perfect, but if God was indeed perfect and intended humans to rule over all animals and birds , why DIDNT he make them perfect? Just rulers must never have feelings of superiority over the subjects, but must work for the welfare of her/his subjects.This is obviously not the case with humans.Nobody is perfect.Since one claims God is perfect,God is a non-existant nobody.If my opponent is still convinced that there exist perfect systems, credible examples would help his/her argument greatly.

In another part of his/her argument, my opponent says:
"So you claim the Bible is advocating violence, yet Jesus himself healed the enemy. Do you think instead of advocating violence, that there is another reason for them to buy the swords?"
No,even if jesus healed a person later,it doesnt amend the pain the person experienced.Another point being,that other than using a sword for self defence,there was no reason for jesus to ask his followers to arm themselves with swords.I am not saying that they should not defend themselves,but since Jesus is claimed to be God's son, why didn't he just pray to his father to save him and his followers.God allegedly helped Moses and created a 'gap' in the sea and gathered two of every specie in existance on to Noah's arc.Surely there was something he could have done to avoid any bloodshed.
Since my opponent is convinced that God is peacefull,I would like to give examples from the old testament.
"I will destroy ... both man and beast."
"Every living substance that I have made will I destroy."
But why does God kill all the innocent animals?What had they done to deserve his wrath? It seems God never gets his fill of tormenting animals. 7:4
For more, : http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
Often people have argued that the old testament is wrong and does not apply anymore. But if the Old testament is wrong, what is the guarantee that the New testament is not wrong as well.Did God suddenly change his mind from violence to peace? The New Testament doesnt even mention that the old one doesnt apply.In fact,the new testament also quotes the old testament.(see http://www.blueletterbible.org...)

My opponent asked,
"So God already knows what everyone is going to do, etc. What if, the reason God allows these people to die, is so that they enter Heaven?".... "So wouldn't it be better if they died sooner than later?"
Well, actually it is not better.Some people may be happy to go to heaven,but what about atheists and agnostics.Did God condemn them to die just because he didnt get any faith from them?You yourself stated that God knows what people are going to do.In your opinion, isnt knowing someone is about to be murdered and not doing anything about it equally sinful as murdering someone?In the book of law,it is.
For the record, God does intend to kill atheists in hell.Quoting the Book of Revelations(part of new testament)
"Revelation 21:8 - But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."
(unbelieving=atheists)
Is making a threat not an attempt to aler free will?

My opponent said : "you talk about jail being useful, then talk badly about Hell? Why do you think Hell exists in the first place? It does the exact same thing as jail does."
Firstly, I dont think Hell exists.And secondly, since God cannot affect free will,rapists will keep raping and serial killers will keep killing till they go to hell.The law gives life imprisonment to such people so that innocents are not hurt by them again.Another point,is that if an atheist is murdered,he/she doesnt get the sympathy he/she deserves in heaven(if it exists),but dies a second death in hell.Do you condemn this?

Another part of my opponent's argument says, that :
"First,none of this proves God doesn't exist...",in response to my allegation, that the Bible advocates negative things and is contradictory.
Actually,it does prove god doesnt exist.If even one of the definitions of an entity seem to contradict the others(in this case God is supposed to be a peacekeeper,but advocates violence on occasion himself,evidence of which I have given in earlier parts of this argument),then the existance of that entity in all the particular definitions is void.I have pointed out contradictions in the beginning of this argument, and in round two.
Further,if the existance of God is contradictory to unquestionable(and logical) scientific facts, then the logical conclusion is that god does NOT exist.
Thanks for your arguments.
PS:I am sorry for cramped text(8000 character limit)
Christian_Debater

Con

Christian_Debater forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Atheist1096 2 years ago
Atheist1096
Thanks...!
Posted by Christian_Debater 2 years ago
Christian_Debater
It's okay, I'll respond to your argument
Posted by Atheist1096 2 years ago
Atheist1096
I dont know man, the debate.org guy says that it is not my turn to post An argument. THIS IS THE argument is was making anyway.

Firstly, you may talk about a perfect world, but it may not exist. Any entity or object in nature has flaws. There exists nothing in this world that is perfect. Nobody is perfect. So by logic, God is not perfect as you claim Him to be. God is nothing but fiction created to set and example, so that people can strive to be ore like him, as mentioned in the bible.

The number of people that were killed in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings was 150,000-256,000. Maybe more.
(http://en.m.wikipedia.org...)

The h1N1 flu killed over 18,000 by UN statistics,..... Lets say God helped 1000 people. What did the rest of the thouands of women, children and men do to deserve this. If God can save 1000 people, why not be a good samaritan and save a couple 1000 others.

And Luke 22:36 reads:

36 [Jesus] said to [the disciples], "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag; and the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one." (New Revised Standard Version, NRSV)

From the new testament above, clearly God is advocating violence. Since you asked me to quote. The old testament is full of it too. Im sure you are aware of it.
Posted by Christian_Debater 2 years ago
Christian_Debater
Thanks for the response Atheist1096 and welcome back to the debate. I was thinking you might never come back :/.

Also, if you read he stated "pack mentality". That might explain his actions if you are curious.
Posted by Atheist1096 2 years ago
Atheist1096
Why would you want to drown a horse? And it is absolutely useless for people who are unwilling tochange their thoughts to enter such a debate. I started this debate because I was willing to see if I could convince a true believer of the truth. At the same time I remiain open minded.
Posted by Christian_Debater 2 years ago
Christian_Debater
Alright then.
Posted by HeavyReader 2 years ago
HeavyReader
And I am also making a point. Pack mentality.
Posted by Christian_Debater 2 years ago
Christian_Debater
You know what my point was.
Posted by HeavyReader 2 years ago
HeavyReader
You may not be able to force it to drink but you could drown it if it does not fight back.
Posted by Christian_Debater 2 years ago
Christian_Debater
Then you are wasting your time. You can bring a horse to a pond, but you cannot force it to drink.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
Atheist1096Christian_DebaterTied
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 and Con both forfeited independently. Pro seems to have had trouble posting one of his rounds, so I'm not counting the second forfeit against him for conduct. S&G and Sourcing were equal enough. As to arguments: Pro tried early on to shift the BoP onto Con. This fails--Pro has to demonstrate the truth of the resolution, NOT the failure of the converse to prove itself. I will note that in R1, Pro seemed to indicate that nonexistent = "cannot be proven to exist by any logical or rational argument", but his failure to make that explicit and coherent in R1 hurts his attempts later on. Fundamentally, Pro brought in good reasons to question the existence of god. He established quite well, I think, that there's no reason TO believe in god. However, it was his burden to PROVE that god does not exist. This is arguably insurmountable anyway, and in this debate Pro failed to deliver such a proof. Arguments to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.