The Instigator
Ludacris
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

God doesn't exist

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,239 times Debate No: 20965
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (8)

 

Ludacris

Pro

There is no such thing as god, anybody thinking otherwise is a fool. Come at me bro.
imabench

Con

I accept this debate and will "Come at the Pro" by arguing that God does exist and that believeing in God does not make someone a fool, this is my first religious debate, but that still does not deny the fact that

Debate Round No. 1
Ludacris

Pro

Finally, a competitor! I can see that this is going to be fun, no insulting each other :) hmm.. So basically I believe that there is no god, science is superior to all, there is no almighty guy in the sky with a white beard that created us. I support EVOLUTION!!
imabench

Con

"So basically I believe that there is no god"
Fair enough, but im not here to convince you to believe in him, im only here to show how he exists

"science is superior to all, there is no almighty guy in the sky with a white beard that created us. I support EVOLUTION!!"
................................................................................ It appears that the Pro is claiming that God doesnt exist because science explains everything.

That leaves me with six arguments
1) Science doesnt explain everything
2) Science and religion can get along well
3) Science doesnt necessarily rule out Religion
4) On an individual level religion may provide more hope or understanding than science
5) Science doesnt disprove that God exists
6) Evidence for the existence of God...

1) Science doesnt explain everything, there are some phenomena that science has even to this day yet to yield a satisfying answer. The Bermuda Triangle, how animals migrate thousands of miles without getting lost without using any kind of tools, why (not how) the Big Bang occurred, why humans have certain emotions triggered only by seemingly random things or events, the Naga fireballs (look it up), spontaneous human combustion, etc.

Science does not explain everything, dont get me wrong it explains a hell of a lot, but it doesnt explain everything, and for the things it doesnt explain religion might.

2) Science and religion can get along rather well. Science and the Bible's explanation for things, not so much, but religion and science can co-exist. Religion can offer explanations for why something happened and science offers the explanations and mechanisms for why something happened. Take the Big Bang theory, people accept that it did happen but may accept religious reasons for why it actually happened. People believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and people could easily accept that the big bang was how it happened.

Science answers questions of facts, Religion answers questions of morality, together the two can co-exist meaning that science cant necessarily rule out religion.

3) Science doesnt necessarily rule out religion. In early times religion was turned to to solve both fact based and morality based questions that people did not know the answers to. For hundreds of years the Bible, the Catholic Church, and Religious "common sense" routinely failed in explaining why certain events happen as science grew stronger and began to explain natural phenomena, but as I said before it only provided answers to logical questions involving facts but has yet to give better answers to moral or emotional questions. That being said, science doesnt rule out religion since it only answers specific questions of nature while leaving others unanswered. Many of these questions involve faith "Why did this happen to me?" "Why does this have to happen to me now?" "Why do teenage girls have such sh*tty role models?" are questions based more on emotions or conscious than actual science, meaning that science cannot offer a valid answer to people whereas religion can.

What does this mean? It means science doesnt completely rule out the existence of God

4) Individuals on a daily basis encounter many emotional questions or moral based questions. Some I named before, Im sure you can think of some yourself, and these morality based questions cannot be answered by science, but they can be answered, sometimes very well, by religious beliefs. These beliefs and faith in religion benefits people, gives them answers when science cannot, can help them get on in their lives. Faith and religion can be strong enough to imply that there is indeed a supernatural or faith-based source helping them with their seemingly normal lives. This force could be God, and science cannot deny that.

5) There are two arguments to almost every God debate, evidence that God exists (see next argument) and solid scientific evidence God doesnt exist (the Pro's job to bring up). Seeing as how the only argument the Pro has introduced suggesting that God does not exist is that science is stronger than faith, which I have showed isnt true in all cases.

6) Existence of God
I probably should have made this argument #1.... whatever, evidence that God exists,
- 1 - The complexity of the Earth and its uniqueness necessary to sustain human life is very remarkable and could point towards an all powerful being who not only created the planets, but maintains them
- 2 - Why do things happen, such as the Big Bang or life, where we know how they happened but when answering why they happened an all powerful being with intentions may be plausible
- 3 - The amount of order in the infinite Universe may also point towards an all powerful being controlling chaos and maintaining order over an infinite amount of space
- 4 - The events that do happen in our life when we need them most while science has already ruled it out do happen in the form of miracles, and some of them are well documented and imply that super natural forces are at work
- 5 - Near death experiences are almost unanimous in description (white light at the end of the tunnel, revelation of knowledge they should never have known about) could imply an afterlife, a product that religion has always been based on.
- 6 - The cosmological argument
- 7 - The teleological argument
- 8 - The ontological argument
- 9 - The transcendental argument
- 10 - The documented interventions of God's actions in human history (Resurrection of Jesus)

I will end here for now :)
Debate Round No. 2
Ludacris

Pro

Seems like I underestimated you! Let's keep in mind that I'm a 14 year-old muslim so I may of not heard all of what you're saying (just the theories).

So far you've been basing your argument on the fact that 'there's no other explanation', just like the Greeks and their mythology (which is just as possible as the existence of god, not that I support that either). If I were to believe that there was a huge, giant, floating pen1s just outside the bounds of human exploration, how should I be wrong? Nobody has ever been there before so I have to be right. Nuh-uh.

As for the creation of Earth: there are many different theories on how the earth and universe was created. I personally support the idea of the Big Bang due to it makes SENSE, rather than a guy with a beard just randomly decided to make us.

As for your argument about 'why' did the Big Bang happen: Take a look at this http://m.youtube.com...

As for why is the Earth so 'unique': If the universe is really inifinite, then what's the possibility that there will never be a planet able to sustain any type of life? Yes, that means aliens might exist somewhere (maybe even a replica of our race).

Just because science doesn't explain something YET, doesn't mean there isn't a valid reason for the occurrence. Science have proven, time and time again, to overrule the beliefs people have had over the thousands of years (ie. the world falls off at the ocean or whatever). I will await your response.
imabench

Con

"As for the creation of Earth: there are many different theories on how the earth and universe was created. I personally support the idea of the Big Bang due to it makes SENSE, rather than a guy with a beard just randomly decided to make us."
Your missing the point im trying to make here about how science and religion can co-exist. The Bible says how God created the heavens and the Earth, and science knows how it was the Big Bang that created the heavens in the Universe. It could be seen by many that God decided to create us, and the Big Bang describes the process of how he did it.

PS, your link didnt work

Science doesnt disprove religion. lets pretend the creation of the universe was a machine, just because we know the mechanics of how the machine works, it doesnt explain why that machine was made in the first place.

"As for why is the Earth so 'unique': If the universe is really inifinite, then what's the possibility that there will never be a planet able to sustain any type of life?"
Again not seeing the point. Look at the Earth, its perfect. Its the right distance from the sun, it has the right mass, the right type of orbit, the right angle of tilt, the right sized moon, the right size sun and right amount of heat coming from it, the right composition of the atmosphere, the right kind of chemical composition. The Earth is remarkably perfect to house human life. I am not saying there are other planets out there that cant SUSTAIN life, but the Earth is truly remarkable in how life just created itself, survived numerous catastrophes and dramatic shifts, and grew so diverse over time.

The point is, there are many planets that can support life, but the Earth is almost magical in how ALL of the circumstances and chance occurrences took place and allowed life to originate in the first place. Science shows how this is almost impossible to happen, yet it happened right here, in this very solar system, on this very planet. It is quite a miracle. Miracles can imply the existence of faith and God since science almost ruled out any chances of life happening, yet it did....

". Science have proven, time and time again, to overrule the beliefs people have had over the thousands of years (ie. the world falls off at the ocean or whatever). I will await your response."
Science has disproven beliefs people had, but those beliefs only lie in explaining factual stuff, not emotional or spiritual stuff.

============================================================================

List of points the Pro has dropped about God existing,
- 1 - The events that do happen in our life when we need them most while science has already ruled it out do happen in the form of miracles, and some of them are well documented and imply that super natural forces are at work
- 2 - Near death experiences are almost unanimous in description (white light at the end of the tunnel, revelation of knowledge they should never have known about) could imply an afterlife, a product that religion has always been based on.
- 3 - The cosmological argument
- 4 - The teleological argument
- 5 - The ontological argument
- 6 - The transcendental argument
- 7 - The documented interventions of God's actions in human history (Resurrection of Jesus)

============================================================================

"If I were to believe that there was a huge, giant, floating pen1s just outside the bounds of human exploration, how should I be wrong? Nobody has ever been there before so I have to be right. Nuh-uh."
Denying it isnt there doesnt make you right, you gotta give evidence, much like how you have to give evidence showing that God cannot exist rather than just claim science is the reason why god doesnt exist...

So far the Pro's only argument for why God doesnt exist is that science answers everything or one day will answer everything. However the Pro has completely ignored how science doesnt explain many things already, how science cannot explain emotional events, feelings, questions about why certain events only happen to particular people.

Science, even if all is known, does not negate religion, faith, belief, and God since the they can be independent from science.

Debate Round No. 3
Ludacris

Pro

I thought this was going to be a simple argument, not one that'd take me 30 min to even reply to :(
imabench

Con

You had 3 days to respond though....

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Ludacris 4 years ago
Ludacris
Good arguement Con, you obviously won due to my lack of attention to the debate.
Posted by Ludacris 4 years ago
Ludacris
Neither is god doulas
Posted by Doulos1202 4 years ago
Doulos1202
Infinity is not possible in reality sorry Pro
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Fake account
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
exactly what i thought
Posted by Doulos1202 4 years ago
Doulos1202
Izbo reincarnate
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
LudacrisimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: ....the existence of God being a simple debate.....FF
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
LudacrisimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Although the reasoning Con presented has been entirely refuted numerous times, Pro used absurd insinuations without support. Fake account
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
LudacrisimabenchTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: heh near vote bomb... this was just a bad debate on Pro's part...
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
LudacrisimabenchTied
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 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: Pro offered to prove that there is no god, but his "proof" was the statement that he doesn't believe in god. He had the burden of proof, but made no attempt to carry it. Victory: Con I gave conduct to Con, since Pro essentially forfeited the last round
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
LudacrisimabenchTied
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: Con's arguments were never refuted. Pro forfeited.
Vote Placed by Doulos1202 4 years ago
Doulos1202
LudacrisimabenchTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never really offered a significant argument.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
LudacrisimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Forfeit
Vote Placed by airmax1227 4 years ago
airmax1227
LudacrisimabenchTied
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: Con's arguments were better and more detailed even before the 4th round when Pro gave up. Arguments to Con as Pro clearly fails on his BOP.