The Instigator
Moelogy
Con (against)
The Contender
Surbhi221
Pro (for)

God does exist. God (pro) vs atheism (con)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Surbhi221 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 731 times Debate No: 102781
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

Moelogy

Con

I recently left my religion and became an atheist. I would like the pro to go first and lay out his arguements. I will refute them and hopefully have enough time and space to provide some of my own.

First round - pro lays out his arguement
Second arguement - my rebuttal and arguements and pro rebuttals
3 - arguements and rebuttals
4 - solely for rebuttals (no new arguements)

This debate is religion-neutral. I do not care what religion you are as long as you can defend God.

BOP - shared even though it should not be.
Surbhi221

Pro

In my opinion god does exist.and i would like to present some complleing statistics which lends credence to my position.
around the world millions of people believe in existence of god.so, there must be something causing this belief.Earth is designed in a very technical and smart way,so there must be a designer of this beautifully designed planet.In our atmosphere the gases are present in a fix proportion which enables life on earth. This cannot be a coincidence.why isn't life possible on mars? why is it only possible on earth? because god made this planet for humans to live.The statement that every effect has it's cause also applies here.this planet,with vast physical diversities it is a effect of some cause.Scientists have proven that there is surely a beginning point to this universe and it there must be a cause for it's existence. therefore the cause of existence must be god.you need to understand the fact that if there is no explanation for the god then there must be no explanation for the universe.the clearest picture of god is jesus.He made sacrifices to serve and help the needy.These divine deeds were not only what he did. He performed miracles by healing the disabled.These actions cannot be perfomed by us.Jesus died in our place so that we could be forgiven.Because of him we are gifted a new life today.
Come to a country like India where there are thousands of proof of existence of god. There are many temples where at night food is kept in a room which is inside 7 locks.In the morning the food is all finished. People believe that God comes at night and have food and leaves early morning.Although this a personal experience but it counts. This is not enough there are infinite proofes.So,Remember that although we can't prove that gods exist,neither we can prove that He doesn't.
Debate Round No. 1
Moelogy

Con

Rebuttals -

"Around the world, millions of peoples believe in the existence of god, so there must be something causing this belief."

This is an ad populum fallacy. You are appealing to popularity to show truth. Popularity does not in the slightest show truth. 1000 years ago, most people thought the earth was flat, this does not grant it as right. 500 years ago, slavery was widely accepted and encouraged, slavery is not right. Nowadays, the most popular religion with the most followers is christianity, christianity is not the truth. In the future, Islam will overtake and become the most popular religion, it does not contain the truth either. Nazis were popular and Hitler was man of the year in TIME in 1938, this does not mean he was right. Geocentrism was the popular standard before copernicus and galileo. Geocentrism has been ddbunked over and over again. Finally, the majority of the world believes in astrology, stars and constellations affect our lives, astrology has been scientifically proven as useless and bogus.

"Earth is designed in a smart way, there must be a designer"

The earth nor thr universe is by many means friendly to life. There have been 6 major extinctions on earth and 99% of all species that lived are extinct now. Most of the earth is inhabitable and the habitable parts are filled with disease, predation and natural disasters. Our only source of energy gives us cancer. The earth nor the universe is fine tuned for life, we are fine tuned for the universe. We evolved to fit the environment we live in and to adapt to our surroundings. Our adaptations make it look like the environment is helpful but it was useless then we adapted to make it useful. Evolution by natural selection only allows the adapted organisms or the fit organism to survive and reproduce. Evolution makes it seem like the environment fits the environment while the organism evolved to fit the environment. The polar bear developed fur to adapt to the cold climate, the elephant has big ears ro prevent itself from overheating in the environment. Camouflage allows animals to escape predators.

"In our atmosphere, the gases are fixed in a right proportion which enables life on earth"

Actually, the early atmosphere was made ammonia, hydrogen and methane and if electricity (lightning) strikes them then they will reassemble into organic life like all the amino acids and other organic compounds, its called the miller-urey experiment.

"Why is life only possible on earth"

How do you know that?

"Every effect has its cause .... scientists have proven the universe has beginning and needs a cause .. therefore the cause is god"

Several things are wrong here. You imply in your statement that the universe has a beginning and came from nothing. Coming from nothing is considered magic and magic is rejected in physics. Things in physics do not come into existence or start to exist, things are just the reassembely of previous things. The law of conservation of mass and conservation of energy states that energy and mass can not be created nor destroyed. This shatters your arguement since nothing could come into existence from nothing or begin to exist and since the universe is matter and energy, it could not have been created from nothing. In physics not everything has a cause, radioactive decay and quantum energy fluctuationz happen spontaneously with no cause under our observation so things do not always need a cause. When you say the universe began to exist, here is where you got it wrong. Scientists do agree on a beginning to the universe but the beginning of space and time is called the big bang. What happened before the big bang, the intial singularity. The singularity is all of space and time and the entire universe compressed into a tennis ball with all the higs boson particles in an infinte density state. The laws of physics and all universal laws and all physical concepts like space and time break down at the singularity. When the singularity explodes, that is the beginning. The singularity could have existed there eternally or it could have underwent big bangs and big crunches for infinite amounts in the past ..... no one knows. So the universe did not start since the singularity was most likely there eternally or maybe something else like big bangs and big crunches happened to it. The space and time did start and the start was the big bang. The universe was always there as the singularity. Its meaningless to state that the universe has a cause for its beginning just because the parts of the universe we observe have a cause for their beginning. This is the fallacy of composition. Just because parts of the universe have a cause to their start, it does not mean that the universe itself had a cause to its start .. if there was one. This is comparable to salamanders. We observe that the salamander can regrow limbs if they are cut, this however does not apply to the entire salamander since if you cut the entire salamander, it will die and not regrow. The characteristic is only specific and true in certain parts that make it up not the entire thing. An example would be the ocean which is made up of plenty of invisible to the naked eye water molecules. This characterisitics of invisibility to the naked eye is only applicable to the water molecules not the ocean itself. The last thing is the fact that saying god did it does not solve the issue, if god made the universe, then who made God? If you tell me god is timeless, this is meaningless. Being timeless is existing in a reality where time does not exist. Time is a measurement of change, without time no one can create anything since creating things takes time. Without time, god could not create anything, he would be frozen since there is no progression of events which takes time. Withut time god could not create the universe in six days like most people claim. He could not create anythinf not even the universe in six days since he is timeless .... no six days since no time, days is a measurement of time. If he is timeless, he cant exist. If there was no time before the universe then god could not exist since there was no time for him. God could not exist without time not even for one second since there is no time for him. To exists is to occupy space for a period of time. No time means your god cant exist not even for one second or for six days to create the universe.

" Jesus miracles "

The only accounts of the miracles of jesus are contradictory outdated gospels that were written 30 - 100 years after his death by prople eho never met him. All of the miracles jesus performed were performed by other long before him. Osiris, baal and ganesha and krishna all have been ressurected in their holy books. However, those books are non contradictory unlike the gospels so they are more reliable than the gospels ever will be. So in a way to believe in the ressurection of osiris is more reasonable than to believe in the miracles of jesus. They both are documented ... one is documented in less contradictory book.

"Come to a country like india"

People in rural egypt say the same stuff happens but they switch the gods with allah and gabriel and the spirit of muhammad. You are not the only religion that claims miracles from god, they all do claim miracles for their own god and they obviously can not all be right.

I will lrovide sources for both in the next round where i will try to keep rebuttals short.

Arguements

1- there is no evidence nor sound arguements

2- god of the gaps, with the advancement of science, there is a smaller place for god since he is not needed to explain things we dont know like he was needed before to explain events we could not explain like thunder, lightning and rain and breathing.

3- in almost all religions, emotions like hate and love are attributed to god, however, now we know that emotions are configurations kf chemicals in the brain. Does god have a physical brain?

I ran out but i have more.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Moelogy 1 year ago
Moelogy
Powerpikachu no thanks i will probs forget
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
@Moelogy Not familiar with it. I looked it up, it's a kind of more advanced Kalam Cosmological Argument, but it ultimately boils down to the same thing: The universe having a creator. I don't really like helping people making arguments mid-debate, so you'll have to wait at most 9 days (this is an estimate).
Posted by Moelogy 1 year ago
Moelogy
Power pikachu how would you rebut the arguement from contingency
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
I've encountered the arguments that Pro made before; Fine Tuning, Kalam Cosmological, and Miracles. Though I don't think I've heard the Ad Populum argument before.
Posted by RyanShakiba 1 year ago
RyanShakiba
2018. That is when it will start. In a way, it has already has started, but I am the only person who knows (I think.) Screenshot this.
Posted by RyanShakiba 1 year ago
RyanShakiba
2018. That is when it will start. In a way, it has already has started, but I am the only person who knows (I think.) Screenshot this.
Posted by RyanShakiba 1 year ago
RyanShakiba
2018. That is when it will start. In a way, it has already has started, but I am the only person who knows (I think.) Screenshot this.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 1 year ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
@PowerPikachu21 I'm an atheist too, high five on that one!!
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
there also is an abstract to a religious god build using the axiom as a model that creates a more clear understanding to how religion may have learned about axiom.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
God is an Axiom of numbers 400 11 and 500 G, O and D the sum of this equation is 89 when added wrong it becomes 911. I had documented notes about this in a digital book but I am happy to share. I need to get some sleep right now and am crammed with a heavy work load till after the holiday.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.