The Instigator
Commondebator
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
1Credo
Con (against)
Winning
4 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
1Credo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/5/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 740 times Debate No: 61322
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

Commondebator

Pro

I will be arguing against the existence of god.

No swearing or offensive language.

Have fun debating.
1Credo

Con

Accepted. As Pro shares the burden of proof in claiming that God does not exist, I will await and respond to any arguments he gives in the next round before presenting my own arguments. I look forward to a good debate!
Debate Round No. 1
Commondebator

Pro

First of all,

God cannot be quantified. He does not have the qualities to do so. In order to be quantified (or measured), the object must be measured relative its size, mass, or distance. God, does not posses any of those qualities. Therefor, he does not exist. He only exists in the minds of religious people. The same thing applies to tooth fairy, Santa, entities, etc"

Of coarse, you could try to prove god by asking a question. Such as "how were atoms formed?" Or, "how did space and time come to existence?" People might reply "god did it". Well, that is a possibility when it comes to creation. Except, then the question becomes "what made god?". If you can't answer that and say "he is just eternal", then the idea of god creating the universe falls apart. Because then, if nothing created god and if god is eternal, then it is possible that the universe can be eternal. So, that means the universe did not need a creator. Also, it is impossible for anything to be eternal. We don't have any evidence of god, so saying that the god created the universe, when we have no evidence of god is foolishness.

Many evidences of god comes from religious texts. These texts contain many logical fallacious. Heres a few from the Bible:
God created the universe"

There is no scientific evidence of god. God cannot be quantified and he does not have any qualities to do so. Thus, based on the lack of evidence, we can conclude god does not exist. (For now at least)

"When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons"-Mark 16:9

Once a human being is dead, he is dead. There is no coming back if there is a total chemical death. The only time when people can come back from dead is 4 minutes prior to the heart stopping. If doctors can figure out a way to revive the heart in 4 minutes, the person can very much be alive. If jesus was dead for 3 days, there is no way he can comeback to life.

"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."-Genesis 1:27. (Adam and Eve)

We know that these characters are not real and mythical because we do not have any evidence for them. 2 people are not enough to bring a population of 7 billion. There is not enough genetic diversity. Adam and Eve disproves evolution, and since evolution is a fact, we know Adam and Eve are mythical.

"Then the lord formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."-Genesis 2:7

Again, god cannot be quantified so we know this statement is false. There is lack of evidence. There is no biological way that plain dirt, can turn into a fully functioning man in one breath. "Dirt" does not contain the proper elements to create a human cell, let alone a fully functioning body.

"And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive"-Genesis 6:19-6:20

It is said that Noah brought 2 of each species that living thing of flesh. That is completely mythical because a 450 food long wooden boat cannot possibly carry 2 blue whales and 2 of every other "living thing of flesh". Its is a physical impossibility. Furthermore, the titanic was 882 feet and made out of parts of metal and it sank. A wooden boat carrying 2 blue whales alone would sink, let alone 2 of each species

"By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work".-Genesis 2:2

Again, since there is no evidence of god and he cannot be quantified, he does not exist, We know the Earth, moon, and sun cannot be created in 7 days. It is impossible. And since day and light was created BEFORE sun and moon, it is impossible. Plus it took him a longer time to create the Earth than the Sun"Which is irrelevant.

Yes, I too look for a good debate!
1Credo

Con

I would like to begin by noting that I am not a young earth creationist, nor am I a Biblical literalist. The majority of the Bible verses Pro quotes and objects to are not relevant, as I believe the theory of evolution to be true and I do not take stories such as 7-day creation to be literal. Creationism vs Evolution and even the Bible and Christian doctrine are not relevant to this discussion, as the assertion by Pro in the debate title reads "God does not exist." The discussion, then, must focus on the arguments for and against the existence of God, and not on arguments in favor of or against the Bible, Christian doctrines, etc. I would be happy to debate these issues, but that must be left for another debate. I will begin by addressing some of Pro's points (I won't respond to each quoted Bible verse for reasons I have already mentioned.) I will then move on to present arguments in favor of God's existence.

"God cannot be quantified. He does not have the qualities to do so. In order to be quantified (or measured), the object must be measured relative its size, mass, or distance. God, does not posses any of those qualities. Therefor, he does not exist."

Since when has being able to be quantified been a requirement for existence? This seems to be a strange and unwarranted claim to me, and I would like to hear Pro's justification for it. I can think of several things that exist without being quantifiable. To give just a couple of examples, abstract objects (such as numbers) and objective truths exist independent of quantification. The idea that one must possess the quality of being able to be measured in order to exist seems blatantly false to me.

"Well, that is a possibility when it comes to creation. Except, then the question becomes what made god?. If you can't answer that and say "he is just eternal", then the idea of god creating the universe falls apart."

I'm not sure why the idea of an eternal God causes the idea of God creating the universe to "fall apart." What reason does Pro have to believe this?

"Because then, if nothing created god and if god is eternal, then it is possible that the universe can be eternal. So that means the universe did not need a creator."

How does it follow that if God is eternal, then the universe is also eternal? Again, no warrant for the claim is provided.

"Also, it is impossible for anything to be eternal."

What reason does Pro have to think that it is impossible for something to be eternal? Does Pro think that objective truth is, then, finite? If so, where did objective truth come from? It seems to me that several claims of knowledge about God and the universe are being presented by Pro without a shred of justification. I would ask Pro to please provide some reasoning to back his assertions in the next round.

"There is no scientific evidence of god. God cannot be quantified and he does not have any qualities to do so. Thus based on the lack of evidence, we can conclude god does not exist."

There is vast amount of scientific data that support the idea that a God exists. I will give a few examples when I present arguments in favor of God's existence at the end of the round. However, even if this scientific evidence was not abundant, absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence.

Pro goes on take issue with literal Biblical creationism and miracles. To the first point I have already responded, I affirm the theory of evolution and I see no reason why belief in God would require belief in the idea of creationism as Pro seems to be implying. In the case of miracles, I would remind Pro that if in fact God exists, we have no reason to think that He is bound by the laws of physics so that miracles would be impossible. Miracles are impossible only if naturalism holds true. Let us then focus on the issue at hand, of whether or not God exists, rather than being sidetracked by issues with Biblical stories.

I will present a few arguments due to space limitations. If more are needed, I will gladly provide them in the next round. In order to disagree with the conclusion of each argument, Pro must pick a premise to take issue with and knock it down in each of the arguments presented. If Pro fails to do this, then the arguments hold sound.

1. God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe.
i. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
ii. The universe began to exist.
iii. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

i. Out of nothing, nothing comes. This premise is fairly self-explanatory, but if further background is needed I will provide it in the following round.
ii. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, to give just one example of the scientific data that supports this premise, along with philosophical evidence (the absurdity of the idea of infinity in reality from Hilbert's Hotel) provide ample reasoning to accept this premise.

2. God is the best explanation for objective moral values and duties.
i. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
ii. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
iii. Therefore, God exists.

i. Objective moral law cannot exist without an objective moral law-giver.
ii. Our moral senses tell us that certain actions are objectively right and objectively wrong. An abandonment of these moral senses is equivalent to the abandonment of our physical senses (i.e. sight) in thinking that the external world is real.

3. The very possibility of God implies His actuality.
i. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
ii. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in in some possible world.
iii. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
iv. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
v. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
vi. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

i. I have not thus far been given any reason to think that the idea of God is incoherent.
ii-v. If it is even possible that a maximally great being (which would require the property of necessary existence in order to be maximally great) exists, then the maximally great being must exist in every possible world (including ours) according to the necessity of its very nature.

4. Naturalism and Evolution cannot both sensibly be believed.
i. The probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable given both naturalism and evolution is low.

ii. Anyone who affirms both naturalism and evolution and sees that the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable given both naturalism and evolution has a defeater for the reliability of their cognitive faculties.
iii. Anyone who has a defeater for their cognitive faculties has a defeater for any belief he thinks he has (this would include the beliefs regarding naturalism and evolution.)
iv. Anyone who affirms naturalism and evolution has a defeater for naturalism and evolution.

v. Therefore, the belief in both naturalism and evolution is self-defeating and cannot sensibly be accepted.

Pro appears to affirm that the theory of evolution is true. Pro also appears to affirm (please correct me if I'm wrong) naturalism. However, the two beliefs are self-defeating. On naturalism, our beliefs are purely material (neuron signals from the brain.) But evolution is not concerned with beliefs, it is concerned with behavior. Evolution is indifferent to whether your beliefs are true or false, so long as they produce the appropriate behavior necessary for survival and reproduction. But if this is the case, it is just as likely that our beliefs are wrong as it is they are right. After multiplying this 50% probability by each individual belief we hold, it appears to be extremely unlikely that our cognitive faculties are reliable. If our cognitive faculties are unreliable, any belief that arises from them is unreliable, including naturalism.



Sources
http://journals.aps.org...

Debate Round No. 2
Commondebator

Pro

Definition of Existence: to have real being whether material or spiritual

Definition of real: actually existing or happening : not imaginary

Definition of Spiritual: of or relating to religion or religious beliefs

Definition of religion: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

Definition of Believe: to accept or regard (something) as true

Sources: www.merriam-webster.com

In order for something to exist, it must be real. Based on the definition of real, it must be actually happening and not imaginary. So far, we have no evidence that god physically existing in the universe. Numbers, are not exactly "real." They cannot be observed, touch or measured. Numbers are a tool USED to measure or calculate, but they are just a thought. (Source: http://www.askamathematician.com...)

I would like to point out that one of the first official religions to come up was hinduism. (Source: www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzLCIMKv17k, www.umich.edu/~aamuhist/.../pubspeak.htm).

Hinduism came up long before the Age of Enlightenment, and at that time, people did not know basic scientific literature. The same religion applies to Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org..., http://www.uri.org..., http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Many religions show the fact that god created the universe. Since those religions were formed long ago, and people did not have much scientific knowledge, it is very possible that religion (or belief in god(s) is false.

"God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe." Really? I would like to have further evidence backing up that claim. "The widely accepted theory for the origin and evolution of the universe is the Big Bang model, which states that the universe began as an incredibly hot, dense point roughly 13.7 billion years ago"- http://www.space.com...

i. Yes, please provide further evidence
ii. Yes, and the most accepted theory is the Big bang theory.

" God is the best explanation for objective moral values and duties." I would like further evidence on that statement.
i. "objective moral law cannot exist without an objective moral law-giver."

The definition of moral is: "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character"- http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Based on the definition of moral, it is the principals of right or wrong. Animals do not have religious beliefs. Yet, the have the morals not to kill each other. The only time when animals do kill each other is if they are competing for food, water, shelter or mating. (Source: http://curiosity.discovery.com...).

Our "Morals" come from laws. Not god. Our laws prevent each other from killing ourselves and our laws make sure we respect each other. Countries such as North Korea have basic human right problems, because their government does not guarantee you being alive. (Source-http://www2.law.columbia.edu...)

3. Please provide evidence supporting your claim.

Definition of naturalism- a style of art or literature that shows people and things as they actually are.- Source: merriam-webster.com/dictionary/naturalism

Definition of Evolution:the process by which changes in plants and animals happen over time-Source:http://www.merriam-webster.com...

First of all, I affirm evolution because of the evidences of fossil records, Chemical and Anatomical Similarities, and genetic changes over generation. (Source-http://anthro.palomar.edu...)

4, i-" probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable given both naturalism and evolution is low."
Please provide evidence.

Furthermore, I am not very naturalistic. While naturalism is a style in literature (based on deffiniton), evolution is a process in science.

Thank you for your reply.
1Credo

Con

"Definition of Existence: to have real being whether material or spiritual"

I looked at your source and was unable to find this definition on the Merriam-Webster website. When using sources, please do not change any words (especially when the source is a dictionary) as it could be mistaken for dishonesty. One of the definitions given by your source reads:

Existence: "the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistenceexistence of other worlds>" [1]

It seems to me that this definition fits the concept of God perfectly. God exists independently of human consciousness and needs no "measuring" as was proposed by Pro earlier in the debate.

"Numbers, are not exactly 'real.'"

I myself lean towards an anti-realist view of mathematics, but the concept of abstract ideas existing independently of being able to "be observed, touched, or measured" remains. For example, where do objective truths come from? How about logic? Metaphysical truths (i.e. the past is real and wasn't created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age, the external world exists, etc.)? And what about morality? None of these examples can be quantitatively measured, yet we are all perfectly rational in accepting them as real.

"Many religions show the fact that god created the universe. Since those religions were formed long ago, and people did not have much scientific knowledge, it is very possible that religion (or belief in god(s) is false."

I find it difficult to believe Pro asserts this as a serious objection to the existence of God. Pro is correct in saying that the idea of God creating the universe is held by many religions. I am puzzled, however, by why Pro asserts that belief in God should be false due to the fact that religions were formed a long time ago. Not only does the conclusion not follow from the premises in this argument, but the genetic fallacy has been committed [2]. Showing how or why one comes to hold a belief does nothing in attempting to show that the belief itself is false, it merely shows the origination of one's belief.

"The widely accepted theory for the origin and evolution of the universe is the Big Bang model, which states that the universe began as an incredibly hot, dense point roughly 13.7 billion years ago"

I would like to thank Pro for providing me with further evidence that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning (I even got a source out of it- it must be my lucky day.) The Big Bang is widely accepted (and rightly so) and tells us that the universe had a beginning in the finite past. But where did this Big Bang come from? If 13.8 billion years ago there was nothing, and 13.7 billion years ago there was a universe (with space, time, matter, and everything else) what could it be that brought all of this into existence out of nothing? Pro affirms the second premise in the first argument I presented:

i. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
ii. The universe began to exist.
iii. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Now, what about the first premise? Pro has neither affirmed nor denied this premise. The premise can be summarized by the simple idea that out of nothing, nothing comes. Nothingness can not produce something, because nothing does not have any properties, otherwise it wouldn't be nothing! Since nothingness could not have caused the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, what did? Only something that exists eternally (otherwise it would need a cause and we might enter an infinite regress), timelessly (for time is finite as well), spacelessly (space, like time, came into being at the moment of the Big Bang), and is immensely powerful (it must take some sort of power to create a universe, after all.) So it seems to me that the premises of this argument are true, and therefore the conclusion holds sound.

Let us then turn to the second argument:

i. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
ii. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
iii. Therefore, God exists.

From what I gathered, Pro agrees with premise 2 of the argument. It is premise 1 that Pro appears to take issue with:

"Animals do not have religious beliefs. Yet, the have the morals not to kill each other."

Pro has misunderstood the concept of objective morality. I have not asserted that one requires religious belief in order to be moral. That is not relevant to the argument. What I have stated is that without a God, or a moral law-giver, we have no basis for a set of objective moral values and duties. For example, raping a child is objectively wrong. By objectively wrong, I mean to say that it is wrong independent of whether or not you or I think it is right or wrong. But if this is true, where does this idea of wrong come from? How can something be objectively right or wrong if God does not exist? I invite Pro to answer this question in the following round. Unless Pro is able to provide some reason to think that objective moral values and duties can exist without God, both the premises, and thus the conclusion that God exists, holds sound.

To the third argument I presented, Pro gave no objection:

i. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
ii. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in in some possible world.
iii. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
iv. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
v. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
vi. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

In order to take issue with the conclusion, Pro must put forward a premise that he/she denies and process to knock it down. Until then, this argument holds sound.

To the fourth argument I presented (the evolutionary argument against naturalism) Pro stated that he/she is not a naturalist. This is good to hear, but I would just point out the contradiction in Pro's reasoning for affirming that only "measurable" objects exist, yet denying naturalism.

Pro has taken this round to produce unnecessary definitions (at least one of which does not match what was found in Pro's cited source), bring irrelevant topics into the discussion (i.e. Hinduism), and has not succeeded in knocking down any of the arguments I presented. Until Pro can take down each of these arguments and proceed to put forth sound arguments against the existence of God, Pro has not shouldered the burden of proof and therefore lost the debate.

Sources:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Debate Round No. 3
Commondebator

Pro

I apologize to con, for my deffiniton and source for Existence.

The definition was actually for the word "Exist."-http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Moving on, thoughts do not exist. Anything thought by humans, that cannot be physically measured, does not exist. Our thoughts only belong to us. Even if the thought is communicated, our thought have no physical value. Morality is the principals of right or wrong. Morality is a thought. It does not contain any physical value. That does not mean that we act, and follow our thoughts. But the thought itself, contains no real physical value. (Source-http://www.huffingtonpost.com...)

"I have not asserted that one requires religious belief in order to be moral."

The deffiniton of religion is: "the belief in a god or in a group of gods" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

Humans are the only self aware, intelligent, creatures on earth and are therefore the only animals capable of inventing deities and religion. Animals (besides human), do not have the capability to believe in a higher power. Yet, they still work together to survive and they have the principals not to kill each other. Based on the definition religion, it is the belief of god, or a group of gods. We have never seen animals worshiping god, so it is safe to conclude animals disbelief in a higher power.

"It is possible that a maximally great being exists." This is what the debate is about. Based on the title, it is "God does NOT exist"." Not, "The probability of god existing."

"If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in in some possible world."

The question is not the possibility of god existing. The title is "God does NOT exist"

"Pro has taken this round to produce unnecessary definitions (at least one of which does not match what was found in Pro's cited source), bring irrelevant topics into the discussion (i.e. Hinduism)"

It seems like con must have misunderstood me. Hinduism was one of the earliest religions. It came before the age of enlightenment (a time of which many scientific discoveries were made). The same applies to Christianity and Islam. So, because many early religions came before major scientific discoveries, it is very likely that many statements presented in the religions are incorrect.

Again, my apologies for my citation. The citation was actually for the word "Exist". Not "Existence,"

Good luck.
1Credo

Con

1. Rebuttal

"Moving on, thoughts do not exist."

Existence: "the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence <the existence of other worlds>." [1]

There is a difference between claiming that something does not exist and claiming that the same something cannot be physically measured. Pro seems to think otherwise, asserting throughout the course of the debate that anything that exists must be able to be physically measured. As a result of presuppositions and following this course of thinking, Pro has found that he/she must deny that abstract objects, thoughts, morality, truth, and logic exist. This is a wild and unwarranted claim. For Pro claims not only that these things cannot be measured (to which I would have no dispute) but that this lack of quantativity means they cannot exist.

From this, we can gather that Pro believes he/she cannot think, recognize truth and logic, or hold any sort of moral beliefs. Pro asserts that each of these are as nonexistent as a planet between Earth and its moon.

"Humans are the only self aware, intelligent, creatures on earth and are therefore the only animals capable of inventing deities and religion. Animals (besides human), do not have the capability to believe in a higher power. Yet, they still work together to survive and they have the principals not to kill each other. Based on the definition religion, it is the belief of god, or a group of gods. We have never seen animals worshiping god, so it is safe to conclude animals disbelief in a higher power."

I have no disagreement here. I'm not sure why bringing up the idea that only humans are religious has any relevance in this debate, as this idea is agreed upon by the heavy majority of both theists and atheists.

"It is possible that a maximally great being exists." This is what the debate is about. Based on the title, it is "God does NOT exist"." Not, "The probability of god existing."

The title of the debate is "God does not exist." This is an assertion made by Pro, from which Pro is responsible for shouldering the burden of proof to show that God does not exist. In the argument I presented (first premise quoted by Pro above) I attempt to show that if it is even possible that a maximally great being (God) exists, then this implies His actuality. I'm not really sure where Pro's confusion lies here, but in any case he does not give any objection to the argument (or to any of the arguments I have presented, for that matter.)

"Hinduism was one of the earliest religions. It came before the age of enlightenment (a time of which many scientific discoveries were made). The same applies to Christianity and Islam. So, because many early religions came before major scientific discoveries, it is very likely that many statements presented in the religions are incorrect."

Again, this argument from Pro commits the genetic fallacy [2]. Pro says that because of how the belief originates, it is incorrect. I gave an example of why this is fallacious in the last round.

2. Arguments in favor of God

At the beginning of the debate, I presented four arguments in favor of God's existence:

i. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
ii. The universe began to exist.
iii. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

To this, Pro stated that the Big Bang caused the universe. I asked Pro what caused the Big Bang and was given no response.

i. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
ii. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
iii. Therefore, God exists.

To this, Pro went on a tangent about Hinduism and animals. It seems Pro misunderstood the idea of objective morality, taking it instead to mean that only people with religious beliefs can be moral. This is not at all what objective morality means.
Objective morality: "the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true." [3]

i. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
ii. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in in some possible world.
iii. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
iv. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
v. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
vi. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Pro gave no response to this argument, other than informing me that he/she was trying to argue that God does not exist. That is all fair and well, but has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument that was presented.

i. The probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable given both naturalism and evolution is low.
ii. Anyone who affirms both naturalism and evolution and sees that the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable given both naturalism and evolution has a defeater for the reliability of their cognitive faculties.
iii. Anyone who has a defeater for their cognitive faculties has a defeater for any belief he thinks he has (this would include the beliefs regarding naturalism and evolution.)
iv. Anyone who affirms naturalism and evolution has a defeater for naturalism and evolution.

v. Therefore, the belief in both naturalism and evolution is self-defeating and cannot sensibly be accepted.

I presented this argument in assumption that Pro affirmed naturalism. However, in the third round Pro stated "I am not very naturalistic" in response to this argument. What is strange is that Pro has asserted on several occasions throughout the debate that nothing exists beyond the material; only quantifiable materials exist:

"God cannot be quantified... therefore, he does not exist." (Round 2)
"God cannot be quantified... we can conclude god does not exist." (Round 2)
"Again, god cannot be quantified..." (Round 2)
"Since there is no evidence of god and he cannot be quantified, he does not exist..." (Round 2)
"Thoughts do not exist. Anything thought by humans, that cannot be physically measured, does not exist." (Round 4)

But surely these beliefs are consistent with naturalism, the same naturalism which Pro denies in order to absolve him/herself from the fourth argument presented. Pro's statement that he/she is not naturalistic and Pro's assertion that only physically quantifiable objects can exist are contradictory.

3. Burden of proof

Recall that in this debate, Pro has had the responsibility of shouldering the burden of proof. This is a result of the assertion made by Pro that "God does not exist." As far as I have seen, Pro has not provided any sound arguments in order to attempt to shoulder the burden of proof.

4. Conclusion

I'd like to thank Pro for creating and participating in the debate.

Pro has failed to shoulder the burden of proof. Pro has not succeeded in bringing forward any sound arguments against God's existence. The arguments that I have presented throughout the debate have not been addressed and thus remain sound (for now.) We have been given no reason to think that God does not exist. On the other side, we have been presented with good reasons to think that God exists. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the assertion in this debate, "God does not exist", is a failed one.

Sources:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://rationalwiki.org...
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
@This_World_Sucks

Your name surly symbolizes god's amazing creation.
Posted by This_World_Sucks 2 years ago
This_World_Sucks
If we made contact with God we will die.
You know why?
Because God never sinned once
and we are all full of sin. He is so holy even one nanosecond of derict contact with God we will die.
Posted by This_World_Sucks 2 years ago
This_World_Sucks
Commondebater.
If Adam wasn't made out of dirt yeah right!
Then how come we die and decompose we turn into dirt.
And our body parts?
God planned it out!
He made the entire Universe within seven days because he is supreme
He is God!
He has the power to control things
Posted by This_World_Sucks 2 years ago
This_World_Sucks
Commondebater
Hey there may be no proof he exist.

There is no proof God doesn't exist.
But I know God will come down some day I promise you that.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Gee bodie "After decades of bible study I concluded that the world of the spirit is just on a higher( super) natural plane.God is light. Spirit beings operate above light speed.That is why we cannot see spirit beings. Our natural eyes do not operate in that environment."

So you made this subjective stuff up.
What a waste of time.

God is a figment of your imagination and your imagination creates places for God to hide.
These conjectures are implausible and most likely, God is not only a figment in your Temporal and Frontal lobes, it has also occupied your occipital lobe.
God is just your imaginary friend and you are not demonstrating any knowledge of the Bible as your concepts are unbiblical to the extreme, you are being and Apologist, making stuff up to give your imaginary friend, imaginary places to hide.
Thinking science won't find you friend there.

It's just another childish game of hide and seek, except purely imaginary.
Imaginary friends and imaginary hiding places for them.

:-D~
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
You sure like to post LONG, complex, & wrong, arguments, don't you ?

It's Impossible to prove that God exists.
It's very easy to prove that God cannot not exist.
If God didn't exist, nobody & nothing else would either.

The idea that God only exists in spirit doesn't make sense.

Are all Indians STUPID as heck?
"Death" doesn't exist.
Reincarnation/ Incarnation does.
Having "faith" in things that don't exist doesn't make sense.
My name wasn't Jesus.
I had a Hebrew name, pronounced Yeshua.

Before Debating any more nonsense, study my Debates, such as the one titled
" "Yahweh" was an Extraterrestrial ... "
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
God is a spirit. That does not mean he really does not exist. He really does. He is more solid than we are.After decades of bible study I concluded that the world of the spirit is just on a higher( super) natural plane.God is light. Spirit beings operate above light speed.That is why we cannot see spirit beings. Our natural eyes do not operate in that environment.
And whether or not God created the natural universe would be a moot debate if life had never come out of it. But life is here. And there is nothing to suggest it just popped up.And as far as Adam being made from the dirt of the earth, that was just his earth suit.Just like the space men have to put on a space suit in that environment, we need to have an earth suit to live here.Our bodies are made of the same substance of the earth. That is why we have dominion over all this natural world. One thing God did not give us dominion over was one another. That twisted thinking came when Adam fell.
You say that Jesus could not have been raised from the dead, and yet you have no proof he wasn't. Just an opinion.We are spirit beings. We live in this physical bodies and we have souls( mind ,will ,and emotions. The spirit and soul can live without the body, but the body cannot live without the spirit man.When this body malfunctions we leave here. All dying is is changing locations.Then we have to go to spiritual environment.
And as far as Noah. He could have just as easily brought eggs on board of most of the creatures. And youing ones.
And finally. 2 people could easily produce 7,000,000,000 or more offspring. If you were to take a kernel of corn , it on a square of a chess board, and doubled it after every square. You would easily come up with that many people.Man has never had a problem populating anything.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Nice Argument Pro.
God most likely exists somewhere between the Temporal Lobe and the Prefrontal Cortex. Many have seen him hanging around near the temporal lobe, but he ducks for cover when the probes approach.
:-D~
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Wouldn't it be convenient if you could peek past your own death and see for sure if God is there or not.Of course then you could not believe by faith. But by sight. So, your spirit man could not be reborn. Without faith it is impossible to please God.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Commondebator1CredoTied
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: This debate was impossible for pro to win before it began. Proving something doesn't exist cannot be done. The premise should have been worded differently. Pros s and g was also troublesome. Pro actually admitted God existed in the minds of believers. I consider that a concession.