The Instigator
ZenekPr0
Con (against)
The Contender
Freecandybars
Pro (for)

God exists

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
Freecandybars has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 197 times Debate No: 97033
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

ZenekPr0

Con

Resolution - god exists


Definitions:

God - omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, eternal, conscious, immaterial, being that actively intervenes into our world, listens to our prayers, judges us after we die. Basically it's the god of the Bible or Quran. If my opponent wants to add some other properties that's fine too.

God under discussion is not an idea, not a word, not a concept. God doesn't equal consciousness, god doesn't equal conscience, god doesn't equal energy etc.

I hope it's clear now what kind of god I want to discuss.

Burden of Proof:

Burden is on my opponent to prove that above mentioned god exists, he or she may use whatever kind of evidence, argument or proof he or she likes.

I will be showing that arguments presented are flawed in some way or another therefore insufficient to arrive at a conclusion that existence of the god is a fact, plus I'll present my own arguments for the absence of god which my opponent should rebut.

I know that there are people completely convinced that the existence of god is a matter of fact so I think this BoP is fair.

Rules:

1. My opponent should start his or her argument in the first round.
2. My opponent is not allowed to make arguments or rebuttals in his or her last round so we can have equal number of rounds to argue. He or she should make his or her final remarks in next to last round. In the last one he or she should write "thank you for debate" or like.
3. No semantics
4. Arguments have to be in written form. Articles only serve as sources. It's unacceptable to link an article or pdf document, call it an argument and expect rebuttal to it.
5. If my opponent accepts debate it follows he accepts all rules, definitions, and BoP mentioned earlier.

Good luck and have fun!
Freecandybars

Pro

It is if people believe in it, personally i don't but who knows
Debate Round No. 1
ZenekPr0

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting my challenge!

=Rebuttals=

My opponent gives one argument for the existence of god, namely "It is if people believe in it" This isn't good argument, people can think of countless different things, it doesn't make them real in a sense we're discussing here. As I mentioned in definition "God under discussion is not an idea, not a word, not a concept." Therefore it's not enough to merely show that people can think of god.


=Arguments against god=

A1. Problem of evil and suffering

This objection can be formulated as a neat deductive argument:

P1. If all loving and omnipotent god exists then gratuitous suffering and evil don't exist.
P2. Gratuitous suffering and evil do exist
C. All loving and omnipotent god doesn't exist.

P1. seems to be obvious. I think it goes without saying, that god who deliberately creates sentient beings only to make them suffer, and then does not gratify it in any reasonable way, can't be considered good.

P2. We now know that animals can feel pain and suffer n a way similar to human one.
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...

However according to teachings of most religions animals don't possess any kind of immortal, immaterial part. Therefore after years of suffering they're doomed to be annihilated at best without any gratification. Some specimens will be born with severe mutations turning their lives into nightmare. Despite this they can't hope for anything. Such state of affairs is absolutely incompatible with the notion of all loving and omnipotent god who could intervene in course of events at any given moment.

As we can see both premises are sound, therefore conclusion is sound as well. My opponent would have to show that either it's possible to be omnibenevolent, yet cause gratuitous suffer to living beings, or that it's not true that animals other than humans can suffer, or that god will finally make amends for all suffer.

A2. Problem of information

This is argument against any sort of god who allegedly revealed himself at some point in history and especially against gods who want to judge us taking into consideration whether we believed in them during our life time.

P1. If omnipotent god exists and wants to reveal himself to humankind then there should be an irrefutable proof for his existence.
P2. There is no such proof
C. God either doesn't exist or doesn't want to reveal himself to us or he is not powerful. In first two cases belief in one is unwarranted. In latter, there is no good reason to call such being a god.

Let's look at our premises.

P1 Stands to reason, if god really wanted us to know of his existence, and if he is very powerful, he should be able to provide us with such a revelation, that no one in their right mind could even dream of refuting. It should be the most obvious thing in the universe, that god exists. It's important to notice that most people actually believe that god revealed himself in some way or another.

P2 Is sound too. There are many different books, some of which are claimed to be divinely inspired, some to be literal word of god etc. None of them contain any revealed knowledge unavailable to humans of time of revelation. Instead they contain lots and lots of anti scientific claims, dubious, outdated moral teachings, in many cases they're riddled with contradictions. In other words, there is not a single piece of actual evidence to support the existence of god. And that's what we would expect if there was no god at all.

You can see that both premises are sound, therefore given deductive nature of this argument conclusion must be sound as well.


A3. Problem of soul

This argument attacks religions which state that humans are the only beings that possess immortal soul and that this soul is necessary to be saved.

The objection is this:

At some point during human evolution there had to be a moment when soulless parents gave birth to child with soul. It has to be the case, the alternative is that literally all other beings possess soul, a view that isn't endorsed by any major religion. But it necessarily follows that at some point in history, there were two generations living together, one with soul, and one without. It means that even though this slightly older generation was for all purposes identical to its offspring, that is they had the same level of conscious, were able to feel the same emotions etc. they didn't have a chance to be saved because of their lack of soul. But how could all loving and omnipotent god allow such situation to even take place? I don't know. To me it strongly indicates absence of omnibenvolent creator.


=Conclusion=

My opponent says that he doesn't believe in god so I don't expect him to defend any particular religion here, arguments above are strong objections against god of Abraham, however if Pro isn't going to defend it then well, they are useless. For example there may be omnibenevolent god who saves all living things and there may be god who possess all above mentioned properties, yet didn't reveal himself to us. However we still wait for some arguments to support a general idea, that any god exists at all. As for now we didn't see any, therefore Vote Con!
Freecandybars

Pro

Vote for the (Con)Tender, Props for my joke. Anyways, I believe that god is just a figure of imagination, If people want it to be real, Let them be, Personally, no I do not believe in any kind of religion, However Let it be, You won't be able to influence everyone in the world that God isn't real. But Props on making a whole Essay on my one simple sentence.
Debate Round No. 2
ZenekPr0

Con

My opponent admits god is just a figment of imagination. I can only wonder why he decided to argue as an affirmative side.

Vote Con!
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
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by ZenekPr0 1 week ago
ZenekPr0
How much time can it take to update a debate?
Posted by Justachap 2 weeks ago
Justachap
God. Something we know in reference of sensation or feeling to be that which created everything, that thing which contains everything, knows everything about everything, does everything, and steers everything towards a moral good (as if to say the universe can deteriorate, there is a thing [god] that directs all matter towards good).
I think that god is a crude term, there is no percieveing or knowing or being thing that knows, controls, guides everything. But i do not disagree with it's conceptual existence, as I come to conclude that within reason god exists, and within reason god does not, simply as - how did the universe originate, how does something come from absolutely nothing, and that which is everything we are to ever experience or be, is due to something, crudely termed god.
Whether god exists or not is not an important question, what is more purposeful is to ask 'what do we do with this (or any) knowledge?' It seems god exists to give importance to the reasons for being morally good, such as not harming others, being kind, peaceful etc, but these are basic commonsense findings that we each come to naturally, obviously living in a world of people each working towards good values is better for people than a world of people living for the opposite, for obvious reasons.
Time is a fascinating thing, as surely everything is inside of it.
Predeterminism inside of time is also interesting, as we are made inside of a reacting universe of matter, atoms etc, and a certain amount of substances reacting can only give a certain yield of product. Mathematic principles to what can happen from any event, and we are inside the universe event, crudely worded.

In short, the question is as important as it is pointless. We clearly choose, as people, mammals, consciousnesses, and 'what would god do' is something i would change to 'what would humanity do' as we are clearly the force which changes the face of the earth. God does not exist, we do.
Posted by missmedic 2 weeks ago
missmedic
Gods exists on faith alone, there is no need for proof. Look at the thousands of gods invented by men and you will see that they stopped existing when men stopped believing in them. If gods were truly necessary there would be proof. When accepting a statement as true, there are two basic methods. The first is reason. It is when the known evidence points to the statement being true, and when the truth of the statement doesn't contradict other knowledge. The second is faith. It is when one accepts a statement as true without evidence for it, or in the face of evidence against it.
Posted by canis 2 weeks ago
canis
Yep..And so do purple elephants... Whatever you want to...
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.