The Instigator
abard124
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
SlamminSam212
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points

God exists

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...
abard124
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/17/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 780 times Debate No: 8673
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

abard124

Con

After my recent debate concerning my view that social patterns suggest the lack of a supreme being, I was thinking that I should expand the debate to the all too generic, but nonetheless extremely important, debate of god, with the opportunity to use any evidence you see fit, other than one narrow category.
As is the case with most debates of this sensitive a topic area, since I took the unpopular side, I do not expect to win. To that, I can only say that I don't really care, because if I can get just one person to read this and make them think twice about their belief, even if they don't change their mind, that is more important than winning. You have probably heard the saying, "It is not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game." I'll be honest, I like winning, but how I argue is much more important; always, but especially so when I try to debate the unpopular end of an issue, as I am doing here. I will allow my opponent to argue first, and I am excited for what is destined to be a great debate!
SlamminSam212

Pro

SO why do you think GOD does not exist?
Debate Round No. 1
abard124

Con

Well, so much for my opponent arguing first... No matter... I guess I'll go... Why do I think god does not exist? Well, all of my reasons add up to far more than 8000 characters, so I will provide a "sampler platter," if you will.
==Category 1: discrepency==
This category is very similar to my previous debate. It might not be a bad idea to check that one out for ideas.
===subcategory 1: internal===
It is an undeniable fact that different cultures have a different view of god(s). It is a sound claim that God, Adonai, and Allah are the same deity, with a different name, but nobody believes that Osiris, Isis and Ra are also the same. I don't understand how people can be so sure that they are right about their view of God, and the Egyptians, mayans, Aztecs, Pagans, Norse, Hindu, etc. are so wrong. There is exactly the same amount of evidence supporting all the other theistic beliefs as there is to support the "standard" monotheism.
===subcategory 2: external===
The fact that atheism is so common and more importantly, the fact that there are more atheists now than there were 500 years ago (by percent), shows that people are slowly realizing that the empty space which most people call "God" is slowly being filled by science. The fact that more people are coming to that conclusion now than did before the scientific revolution is really just a correlation. Think of it this way. You have a glass full of oil. You can't drink oil. Then you take some good old H-2-O and pour it into the glass. Oil floats on water, so a little spills out. You can drink water. The glass is still mostly full of oil, but there is now water in the cup. Since you can drink water, it is a metaphor for what we know, in other words, science. Since you can't drink oil (well, you could, but it wouldn't hydrate you), but it is there, it is a metaphor for what many believe to be true, but don't know, in other words, God. Science and God don't mix, but neither has vanquished the other. This is because, until every aspect of the universe has a proven scientific explanation, and then some, it is extremely unlikely that everybody will be atheist. However, as more water comes, more oil goes away. They can't both be true, but you can drink water, you can prove science. Damn, that was a big tangent!
==category 2: complete lack of evidence==
I have yet to hear one intriguing and viable piece of evidence suggesting that any deity exists. Already, there is proof against parts of the bible taken literally. For example, it has been proven that the earth is far over 6000 years old. For example, there is proof that natural selection happens. What makes God so resillient to still be true while the rest of your book becomes fiction?
==category 3: basic scientific reasoning==
===subcategory 1: law of conservation of matter===
All of the atomic nuclei in the universe can be condensed into a ball roughly the size of a fist. That's what was there before the big bang. From then until now, there has not been so much as a proton formed. That is the law of conservation of matter. So when God said let there be people (which is a ludicrous idea in and of itself, by the way), where did he get the materials from?

However, all of my previous arguments could technically be considered meaningless, because when disputing the legitimacy of an object that can't be absolutely proven or disproven, really the most important argument is the one supporting the existence of the object, because the status quo is that we don't know, therefore having con start with an objective leg up. Obviously, the voters are not objective, so I don't have the leg up, but your argument is integral to the debate. I'm just defending the objective status quo. Notice that I entitled the debate, "God exists" and took con. I did that for a reason.

I would just like to end by paraphrasing a rather famous quote. Both of us deny the existence of gods, I just deny the existence of more gods than you.

Looking forward to your response!*
===subcategory 2: law of conservation of energy===
When God said "let there be light," where did all that energy come from? There are plenty of stars, and it takes a whole lot of energy to light them. There are legitimate explanations as to how they work, but God saying it and it magically happening is absolutely ludicrous. Also, where would he obtain the energy to form all the matter? When women are pregnant, they have to eat more because they need energy for both themselves and the baby. How would God obtain that energy to make humans, and really all matter.

*would you please excuse the little format debacle? I'm sure you notice that I accidentally concluded before 3.2. I would just cut and paste the section, except I am on my iTouch, so I would have to retupe the whole thing. My computer is broken, so this is all I have for now. Thank you so much for understanding!
SlamminSam212

Pro

If there is no God you or anyone that you know, without using a seed create a dandelion. You will see that it is impossible, but he did it because, someone had to when no seed to be had.
Debate Round No. 2
abard124

Con

Please forgive me if I am wrong, but I think you are saying something about how you need a seed to grow a dandelion, but God didn't. I'm sorry, but that is exactly what I'm saying. Nothing is capable of breaking the laws of physics or biology.

Well, now, I have laid out my reasons for why I don't believe in God. And you have one poorly put together sentence to support your claim, while you haven't effectively refuted any of my claims. Perhaps you're a final round debater? If so, so be it. Perhaps you figure that you don't have to do anything to win because of predisposition? Remember that there are other categories which, by this stage, seem to be an imminent issue for you unless you write a phenominal round 3. One somewhat coherent point is not going to win you anything.
SlamminSam212

Pro

SlamminSam212 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by abard124 7 years ago
abard124
Y'know, since Sam is out of town, I kinda wonder where those 7 points came from. I don't see how his one poorly constructed sentence can win him s/g, conduct, and arguments. I really hate declaring myself the winner, but I think it would be very naïve not to vote for me in those 3 categories. And nobody should win sources, as neither of us used any. And sorry if I sound arrogant, but I really think that people should think before they vote. Otherwise we end up with people like dubya for 2 terms :-)
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
PRO lost this... He had no arguments.
Posted by SlamminSam212 7 years ago
SlamminSam212
I will debate you and i got the facts just wait and see Charles i got this dont worry
Posted by abard124 7 years ago
abard124
Charles, I will oncemy computer is fixed. I can't copy and paste on my iTouch (for now), but I will most certainly debate this with you.
Posted by charles15 7 years ago
charles15
I'll debate you in this! just copy and paste your opening argument into a new Debate and send me an invite. You'll have a hard time proving you points and it could be a very interesting and fun argument. So, if your willing I'm ready to debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
abard124SlamminSam212Tied
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:40 
Vote Placed by SlamminSam212 7 years ago
SlamminSam212
abard124SlamminSam212Tied
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 
Vote Placed by abard124 7 years ago
abard124
abard124SlamminSam212Tied
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:50