The Instigator
TheDebateMaster1
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Craighawley215
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

God does 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Craighawley215
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 585 times Debate No: 60001
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

TheDebateMaster1

Con

I am the con and argue why god doesn't exist, while my opponent pro argues why god exists and it is the pros and cons job to find scientific proof for their side . By proof I mean scientific proof not religious proof like the bible.

1. Round: Acceptance
2. Round: Argument
3.-4. Round: Rebuttals
5. Round: Conclusion

Please only religous people accept for the pro gods side
Craighawley215

Pro

I accept the challenge, and look forward to reading your initial argument.

Good luck to you, and I expect a thought provoking debate!
Debate Round No. 1
TheDebateMaster1

Con

-Thank You for accepting the challenge and I look forward to our debate. Remember first stage just write your point.

I firmly believe god doesn't exist. This is because Darwinism is against the English Standard Version Bible Genesis 1 which says

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. And God said, “Let there be an expanse the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. God called the dry land Earth,and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day. And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day. And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

5 days (Until Adam was Made)
+ ~2,000 years (From Adam to Abraham)
+ ~4,000 years From Abraham to Present)
-----------------
~6,000 years(Total)

[1] Bible

Based on the Bible's extract from Genesis 1:27 and a simple calculation based on the Bible's text, we can safely deduce that based on the bible that 6,000 years ago all beasts were created and also the humans. This entire statement is contradicted by the definition of evolution which is "a theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time, or the process by which changes in plants and animals happen over time, or a process of slow change and development"

[2]http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Evolution is proved by fossils which can be carbon dated to see their age. Based on current estimations and evolution the earth is 4.5 billion years old. As you can see the bible contradicts carbon dating and science. This proves that Genesis 1:27 is false as it has a lower credibility based on that the bible also says that the sun goes round the earth and that the Earth is flat.

Statements from the bible about how the sun revolves around the earth

Joshua 10:12-13
Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.

1 Chronicles 16:30
tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.

Psalms 93:1
The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.


Statements from the bible about the earth being flat

Job 28:24

For he looks to the ends of the earth, and sees everything under the heavens.

Psalms 19:4-6
yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs his course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.

Daniel 4:10-11
The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.

Based on all this it's hard to take the bible seriously after so many verses were proved false by science. This makes the bible illogical.

God Speaks only the truth
God Wrote Bible
Lots of verses of the Bible false.
God can't lie
God must not exist therefore
God can't write Bible, if he doesn't exist
A human writer wrote the Bible

So the bible itself disproves that god exists.

Also darwinism disproves creationism, which is part of the bible, which as we know proved from history is typically a lot of times false. Any way if god existed, why would god let animals and humans die and why doesn't he answer prayers, like when you ask him to heal a stranger from cancer. Also it is very impractical that a old white bearded man exists and knows everything. I am not saying he doesn't exist as there is no proof for that, but it's very impractical and illogical for god to exist. Also the burden of proof lies in saying he exists, not in saying he doesn't exist. So based on the overwhelming evidence against god, according to the rules of this debate god doesn't exist

Craighawley215

Pro

I would first like to state, for the record, that I am a Christian, and freely acknowledge that there are an infinite number of things that I don't know about the being I refer to as God, and possibly never will. However, I do believe that God exists, regardless of whether or not he's the particular God that I have in mind. That being said, I intend to argue that there is a God, in whatever form he may be, who exists either within our perceived universe or beyond it, and that this being is supernatural in existence.

I would like to remind the audience that Con and I share an equal burden of proof, and per Con's rules, the opponents are restricted from presenting religious texts as evidence. I will keep this in mind throughout the debate.

The first issue I would like to discuss is that of creation. If we choose to disbelieve in the possibility of God, than we are forced to rely solely on the Big Bang Theory for explaining our miraculous existence. If one disbelieves in the possibility of God, they then are forced to submit to the ideology that all life and matter is the result of an ancient cosmic explosion of energy. This theory means that matter, through time, was spontaneously created from physical and literal nothingness.

The origin of life can be theorized. The creation of physical life from simple organic compounds is known as abiogenesis, and is a supported natural process. However, these simple organic compounds would theoretically have been synthesized from nonorganic material. So, in order for organic material to exist, we have to believe that it was spontaneously generated at some point in the timeline, and spontaneous generation has been thoroughly disproven as a scientific theory. The Big Bang Theory is acceptable as an explanation for the creation of the physical universe, because the astrophysics support said theory. However, where did all this matter come from, if not from some supernatural beginning? The most common answer is that it has always been there, a theory which requires just as much faith as the belief in God.

So, in essence, to deny the possibility of supernatural creation, you are required to either believe that the energy and matter have always existed within our universe, which is impossible to grasp, or you believe that somehow, energy and matter are literally the result of physical nothingness eventually morphing into a universe filled with complex intricacies and life that relies on the concept of spontaneous generation. In contrast, I prefer to believe that some supernatural entity could have contributed to the origins of the universe.

http://www.infoplease.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I would next like to raise the issue of the limitless universe.

If you would indulge me: I would ask if you support the theory that our universe is an infinite space, going on forever (as we perceive it)? If we accept that the universe as we understand it is endless, then the possibilities are also endless.

Even if I subscribe to the possibility that God does not exist, I must submit that there is something else out there. Theoretically speaking, if we believe that the universe extends beyond even our imagination, then the chances for intelligent life are raised to an almost certainty. If man is a result of the Big Bang Theory, surely there are other planets with the capacity to support life, and surely life would have taken form on one or many of those sister Earths. It is entirely possible that there is life on another planet, possibly less advanced than we are, and possibly more advanced. For all we know, what we perceive as God could feasibly be an extraterrestrial life form of some type.

In addition, it is probable that the human race does not have the capacity to understand the sciences that other worlds entail. Our comprehension of physics is limited to the confines of Earth, while astrophysics is still a relatively new avenue of knowledge. Especially if we accept that the universe is endless, then there is no end to the reaches of otherworldly science and natural phenomenons, which means that we lack the knowledge or ability to concretely deny the possibility of God's existence.

Regarding evidence supporting God, there is no scientific evidence for the everyday existence and activity of God, but within religion, there is a deist belief that God set things in motion and then has been observing our world from afar. The analogical example would be a watchmaker, winding the gears and then letting it go so he can watch the seconds tick.

Additionally, a strange discovery was made in June by the Wyoming Institute of Technology, regarding linguistic patterns within our biological coding. This instance can potentially be construed as coincidental, but is one of the few more compelling resources I have seen. The scientists at WIT were analyzing DNA code when they discovered that "Junk DNA" in humans, which had previously been discarded as useless, bared traits of linguistics. The genetic material was analyzed and the patterns corresponded explicitly with ancient Aramaic, the language that is most commonly associated with Abrahamic religions. Furthermore, when the material was translated, there were multiple lines of text that matched up with biblical verses.

Matthew Boulder, chief linguist for the project, issued this statement: "As for the evidence- it is there and it is, to my view, undeniable. The very word of God, elegantly weaved in and out of our very bodies and souls, as plain as day."

http://witscience.org...

This information, as I said, may be construed as coincidence, but if not, then it serves as a very strong nod toward the supernatural.

Theoretically speaking, an endless universe constitutes a definite probability that some version of a God exists beyond what the human race is able to perceive. When you combine this with the impossibility of spontaneous life generation, then it logically is not a far stretch to suggest a supernatural existence.

While there may not be any hard evidence proving the existence of God, there is also no damning evidence to disprove God, and disbelief requires as much faith as belief itself. As Con and Pro share equal burdens in this debate, I look forward to rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 2
TheDebateMaster1

Con

TheDebateMaster1 forfeited this round.
Craighawley215

Pro

In the interest of fairness, I will give Con the benefit of the doubt, and refrain from posting my Round 3 Argument.

If Con forfeits Round 4 as well, then I will suggest that Con shows poor conduct, and proceed with my rebuttal against their Round 1 argument.

I hope to see a Round 4 rebuttal from Con.
Debate Round No. 3
TheDebateMaster1

Con

TheDebateMaster1 forfeited this round.
Craighawley215

Pro

Since Con has forfeited both Round 3 and Round 4, I suggest that Con displays poor conduct.
In addition to showing poor conduct, I question why Con chose to debate this topic, if they were unwilling to debate any serious response? And furthermore, why Con felt the need to stress parameters such as non-religious proof, and only religious opponents?

However, as I stated in Round 3, I will now proceed with my rebuttal against Con's argument:

"I firmly believe god doesn't exist. This is because Darwinism is against the English Standard Version Bible Genesis 1."
The definition of Darwinism, according to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary is as follows: "a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent groups of plants and animals have arisen from the same ancestors."
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

In essence, Darwinism is the theory of adaptational evolution, that species will evolve in order to survive. This is an observable phenomenon, as proven by the study of finches and beak elongation. However, this theory does not provide an explanation regarding the explicit origin of life, and does not explicitly disprove the Biblical record of creation.

That being said, I feel the need to suggest the possibility that the Bible is a metaphorical text. Even if the written text is divinely inspired, there is a very real possibility that the text is allegorical in nature, rather than literal. In order for you to take this text as literal, I suggest that you would be a believer yourself, which raises the question of why you are Con in this debate. So if you are Con, then I naturally will infer that you do not take this text literally, and therefore, there is no real contradiction on the basis of logic, unless you intend to debate philosophy.

Regarding your references to the sun going around the Earth, the human race at one point truly believed that the sun revolved around Earth, and accepted this as a scientific fact. Since that time, we have proven that this is not the case, but to the perception of the ancient world, this was a perfectly acceptable image, and is not a significant point of discussion unless you once again intend to take this text very literally.

However, I would like to make a point regarding Joshua's "Sun Stand Still" verse.
Rumors have been circulated regarding a discovery of a "missing day," according to NASA, but this discovery is merely a rumor and nothing more. On the other hand, however, there are references in other ancient cultures to a single day that is twice as long, which would support the Joshua story. While there is no explicit scientific proof of a "long day," there are specific references to "a day twice in natural length," in Chinese, Egyptian, Mexican, Aztec, Peruvian, and Babylonian history that chronologically coincide with the existence of Joshua.

I highly recommend reading the full article, which can be found here:
https://bible.org...

Regarding the statements that the Earth is flat, the Earth has been established to be spherical in shape since the Third Century BC, and "The ends of the Earth" has been widely used as a common expression for the majority of this time. Therefore, it is not substantial evidence. Furthermore, none of the three verses you posted explicitly suggest that the Earth is literally flat.

"Based on all this it's hard to take the bible seriously after so many verses were proved false by science. This makes the bible illogical."

It may be difficult to take as literal, but as I have said, there is a possibility that the text is more metaphorical in nature.

"God Wrote Bible"
Theoretically, He divinely inspired man to write it for Him.

"Lots of verses of the Bible false"
You mean non-literal, or contradictory?

"God can't lie"
But humans could make mistakes.

"God must not exist therefore"
Why not?

"God can't write Bible, if he doesn't exist"
Theoretically speaking, he only inspired the Bible.

"A human writer wrote the Bible"
Technically, lots of human writers combined stories in collaboration to create the collection of texts that we now call the Bible.

"So the Bible itself disproves that God exists."
How so? If you mean to suggest that God literally is the only source for the Bible, and that any misconception or alleged contradiction is to be construed as an outright lie from God, than I can only say that I disagree. The Bible was written by many authors, which is proven by analysis of the various books, and the theoretical authors, many of whom are proven to be real people in history. If we accept that man has written this text in any way, then it instantly becomes subject to the possibility of human error, no matter how divinely inspired it may be. These authors were subject to the science of their time, and would have recorded their texts according to their understandings. For example, Mark and John both have drastically different versions of the same Gospel.

"Also darwinism disproves creationism,"
Technically, it doesn't. Darwinism does not account for the origin of life and matter itself. Darwinism only disproves the creationist theory that literally all animals were created in less than a week. This, once again, may be a metaphorical description. What the Bible labeled as 6 days, could realistically have been eons, and only recorded in terms of "days." However, we can't be certain if this is meant literally, or metaphorically.

"Any way if god existed, why would god let animals and humans die and why doesn't he answer prayers, like when you ask him to heal a stranger from cancer."
If God exists, then I cannot begin to comprehend his plans, or why he would allow a disease like cancer to exist.

"Also it is very impractical that a old white bearded man exists and knows everything."
Impractical, maybe so, but impossible? That's the real question. And I have no idea what color he is, or what his grooming habits are. As I stated in my main argument, what I perceive as God maybe an extraterrestrial of some form.

"I am not saying he doesn't exist as there is no proof for that, but it's very impractical and illogical for god to exist."
If you are not saying that God doesn't exist, then you have essentially conceded the debate.

"Also the burden of proof lies in saying he exists, not in saying he doesn't exist."
As you stated in the first round: "I am the con and argue why god doesn't exist, while my opponent pro argues why god exists and it is the pros and cons job to find scientific proof for their side."
Your statement that "it is the pro's and the con's job to find scientific proof" is your written declaration that you and I share an equal burden of proof. That being said, you would have had to provide scientific evidence suggesting that God does not exist, which you arguably have not. In actuality, you have argued against the literal validity of the Bible, not against God, so you have not successfully fulfilled your burden of proof.

"So based on the overwhelming evidence against god, according to the rules of this debate god doesn't exist."
You have not provided any real considerable evidence regarding the nonexistence of God, and very little evidence against the Bible, which you originally suggested was not permissible as evidence in the first round. For that matter, your rules were rigidly defined, and you broke them yourself.
You make a point to disallow the Bible as a source, and then repeatedly try to disprove the Bible as a source. This means that you realistically do consider the Bible to be a source in this debate, but were attempting to restrict your opponent's options. So this causes me to infer that you either have a poorly conceived argument, and a very small one at that, or that you were attempting to play semantics, or tricks, on your opponent. Then, you tried to end your argument by suggesting that Pro bears the only burden of proof, which is incorrect.

So in summary, Con's only arguments rely on the logical contradiction of a literal interpretation of the Bible, a text source which Con firmly restricted in the rules. In addition, Con's arguments do not provide any evidence to dispute the claim that God does exist. I hope that Con has not abandoned this debate, and will at least read my rebuttal.

I await the Conclusion round.
Debate Round No. 4
TheDebateMaster1

Con

TheDebateMaster1 forfeited this round.
Craighawley215

Pro

Being that Con has posted nothing beyond his initial argument, I suggest that there is no question that Con should lose this debate. I must say that I am thoroughly disappointed that Con didn't attempt any rebuttal, and this should warrant the loss of the conduct point.

In summary, Con violated their own terms of the debate, and used the Bible for the bulk of his argument, which was specifically restricted from being used as proof. In addition, Con's arguments did nothing to disprove God, and only disproved the Bible if taken in a literal sense. The result is that Con's argument fails to address the main point of this debate: Does God Exist?

Based on Con's inadequate argument, combined with his forfeiting of 3 out of five rounds, the audience is encouraged to vote for Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by TheDebateMaster1back 2 years ago
TheDebateMaster1back
Hi, Sorry about the forfeiture, Too much debates, so I had to cancel my account, but I am back. I am really sorry
Posted by Craighawley215 2 years ago
Craighawley215
I'm actually really bummed that Con forfeited.
Posted by Craighawley215 2 years ago
Craighawley215
So then theoretically, I can't simply use the bible as proof for God (which is pointless anyway, because it is an unfairly biased text), but I am allowed use the bible as support for my non-biblical proof?

Sorry if I'm bothering you, I'm just trying to completely understand the parameters you have established, as this changes my rebuttals substantially.
Posted by TheDebateMaster1 2 years ago
TheDebateMaster1
I didn't say you can not have biblical references, I said you can not use the bible as proof for your argument, which I didn't do. I referenced what it says, but I didn't use it as proof
Posted by Craighawley215 2 years ago
Craighawley215
Since you used biblical references to make the bulk of your Round 2 argument, I am compelled to ask why you discouraged religious text use in your initial rules?
Posted by Mr.Lincoln 2 years ago
Mr.Lincoln
This will be a good debate
Posted by zachaull 2 years ago
zachaull
there are other religions other than the abrahamic religions. I am Deist, and i believe that god created the beginning, and than everything happened. Also, it is impossible to disprove a god, but the abrahamic religions are already proven wrong
Posted by TheDebateMaster1 2 years ago
TheDebateMaster1
Scientific proof is proof based on science, like fossils,errors of carbon dating, no sign of god and so on.
Religious proof is something used in a religion typically holy books
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
You are missing base definitions, and if assumptions of holy books are (or are not) accepted as evidence.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
TheDebateMaster1Craighawley215Tied
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: Unfortunately, Con abandoned this debate. How unfortunate. Conduct for the forfeits, and arguments for Con's failure to participate.
Vote Placed by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
TheDebateMaster1Craighawley215Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit... I was a little disappointed with Con creating a debate saying God does Exist, taking the Con side, then only arguing the specific God of the bible, without specifying in the beginning that this was a debate specifically about that god. Pro could have had an easy win by simply noting that refuting one god does not refute them all. I agree that gods likely don't exist but it is not an easy debate to win, given that there is no proof for or against either side. Pro had some interesting points though, and I would have liked to see Con respond to them.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
TheDebateMaster1Craighawley215Tied
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