The Instigator
Jenae.ross
Pro (for)
The Contender
TheRealSpassky101
Con (against)

God is Real

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
Jenae.ross has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 282 times Debate No: 96475
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

Jenae.ross

Pro

I will be proving the point; God is real.
I prefer to argue with someone of an Atheistic view on life.
My argument will begin, I will rebut my opponents' points, and I will add my other points. I will then make a conclusion and then the voting shall begin! Comments are appreciated.
Let the battle begin!
Good luck! :)
TheRealSpassky101

Con

Hello. It is my pleasure to be in this debate. The flaw of this style of debating is that the topic is not specific. Are you pro evolution or is evolution a contradiction to religion? Are we talking about Christianity or Islamic or Jewish? Are we trying to prove multiple gods? Will the concepts of dualim and NDEs be dicussed?
Debate Round No. 1
Jenae.ross

Pro

My apologies for not making this topic clear. I am talking about the existence of God. Is there really a creator of all things? Also, no. Evolution is not parallel to religion. If God created everything, then there is no such thing as Evolution.

To begin my argument;
I believe that there is a God who created all things with an intelligent design. I believe that He loves us, cares for us, and wants us to spend eternity with Him. I will begin by making my points.

1.) Just because you can't see Him, doesn't mean He is not there.

2.) Scientific evidence all around us proves that God is real.

3.) It is really possible to have a relationship with Him.

........................................................................................................................................................................................................................

1.) Just because you can't see Him, doesn't mean He isn't there.

You can't see wind, doesn't mean wind doesn't exist.
You can't see emotions, doesn't mean they don't exist.
You can't see air, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

My point is, you can feel wind. You can feel emotions. You can feel air.
God is like wind, emotions, and air, all at the same time. You can feel God. You can experience God. You can live with God.
Like wind, you can feel God. When worshipping, listening to someone speak, or even just sitting on the beach. You feel the power of God with even the simplest things.
Like emotions, you can experience God. God can be experienced by anything really. You can feel His power through His creation, and you can feel His wisdom through His Word.
Like air, you can live with God. You can't live without air, you can't live without God. By accepting the fact that He sent His son to die for us, we can put our faith and Him and live with Him for eternity.

Romans 10:9
because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

........................................................................................................................................................................................................................

2.) Scientific Evidence;
It is very clear that God exists through His creation. How can you explain the process of photosynthesis? How do you explain the water cycle? How can you explain how animals know when to migrate? All of these these are highly organized, there is no possible way, that a random explosion could make such complexity by coincidence.
Nothing can come out of Nothing.

........................................................................................................................................................................................................................

3.) It is really possible to have a relationship with God.
Some people believe that God is just someone who demands worship from us and doesn't care about anything else. However, God is nothing like that. God created us with free wil. He loves us and cares for every human being He created. He is also always there. If something is wrong, you can just talk to HIm. He will always listen. And the amazing part is, God wants to have a relationship with us. It's a win-win situation for all of us.

........................................................................................................................................................................................................................

In conclusion, I believe that God really does exist and that He loves us and wants a relationship with us. I also believe that He really did create the universe and that evolution is invalid.

........................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Sources;
Bible
Bible Gateway
My Bible class at school

........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
TheRealSpassky101

Con

Thank you for your well thought out argument. However, I am sorry to inform you of the fallacies in your argument. In your first argument, you aren't proving anything; you are simply making a claim.
........................................................................................................
In your second argument you did the common action made by most people by saying the world is too complicated to be created by a "random" explosion. Photosynthesis and the water cycle have been proven by scientific evidence, just like that random explosion was proven by cosmic evidence.
........................................................................................................
And lastly in your third argument, you are saying you can have a relationship with something that you haven't proven real. I do not have to go any further.
........................................................................................................
My Argument:
You claimed that evolution cannot be real because it is not parallel with religion. So, if I prove that religion is real, I can claim that God is not.
.........................................................................................................
Evolution is a necessity for modern science. All of the world's greatest scientists believe in evolution. If you were to go on Ted Talks, almost all of the people there believe in evolution. I will prove evolution in a later stance.
..........................................................................................................
One Last Note:

Even the Pope believes in evolution.

Evolution: The Greatest Show on Earth, by Richard Dawkins.
Debate Round No. 2
Jenae.ross

Pro

So, yes, I did claim all of those things, but what is your point?
In regards to the pope, just because the most well-known person in the universe believes in something, it doesn't mean it exists. The pope can believe all day that the color of the sky is purple; and everyone can say it is purple too just because that's what the pope believes. But we all know that's not true; and it's obvious that the sky is not purple.
Same with God and evolution.
Just because the pope believes in evolution, doesn't mean it exists.
But I'd like to call you out on that. Just because the Pope believes in evolution does NOT mean that everyone else should. Just because Miley Cyrus is believes in being pansexual, it doesn't mean that everyone else should. My point is, the fact that the pope believes in evolution means nothing. If anything, for the pope to believe in evolution is totally contradictory to his position. If you, or anyone, claims to be a follower in Christ, you can't claim to believe in evolution...they just don't go together. If you are a Christ follower, (like the pope) you believe that God created the universe with intelligent design. And by that, you believe that everything has been that same for thousands of years; meaning; no evolution has occurred. You would also believe that man has been the dominant being of the earth since the beginning of time.
My point it, to say that the pope believes in evolution is a false witness on his part.

Going back to my points previously, I was basically trying to prove God was real through those things I listed.
God is real and evolution is not.
TheRealSpassky101

Con

I severely thank you for knowing the concept of evolution. Some people say very false things about evolution and have meaningless arguments. I also thank you for knowing how long evolution takes place.
It is not just the pope that believes in evolution; many arch-bishops and most preachers also believe in evolution. The reason that your preacher doesn't tell you that he believes in evolution is because if one part of the Bible is false, what is keeping the rest of it wrong.
And they have good reason to believe in evolution. I said that I would prove evolution in this round, so I won't disappoint.
In the story of Noah's Ark, his ship crashed into a mountain in Europe. Also in the story, on this ship there was two of every animal. Scientists have searched for the skeletons of kangaroos that should have crossed the entire mountainous continent of Europe, crossed almost all of Asia, and went across a land bridge to Australia, which there is no evidence of such land bridge, and guess what? The scientists were surprised that there was no evidence of ANY of that happening. No dead kangaroos. So if the story of Noah's Ark is true, then the kangaroos are supposed to do cross multiple continents without dying. That is not very likely.
The story of Noah's Ark also takes place 4000 years ago, when supposedly the entire planet was underwater from a massive flood. However, the world's oldest tree is over 5000 years old. Let me just say that trees don't last that long underwater, so you can make two claims. That a) The trees lasted years underwater and all of them survived or b) that the tree really isn't 5000 years old. The first choice is impossible and the second one denies that science is accurate. If you were to claim the second choice, you are not trusting science. How come you do not trust science when it removes the possibility of a book being wrong but you are happy to trust science when you are driving a car or posting debates on a computer?
There are many things supporting evolution. Darwin's finches, DNA relations, and even more. There are scientists that can study the brain and determine how similar they are to animal brains. At the Varik Institute, they performed an experiment simulating the conditions of primordial Earth. Out of the simulation, amino acids were formed, a necessity of life. Also, viruses are always changing and in time EVOLVING. God was known to create all life on Earth, but recently a lab created the first artificial life form.
Now there are countless more debunks fore Noah's Ark, but I will drop my case there and go over the facts.
Fact: The world is over 4 billion years old.
Fact: There was no such thing as Noah's Ark.
Fact: This leaves plenty of room for evolution, but none for many of the Bible's stories.
Fact: People have to deny evolution to keep from questioning the Bible.

In the conclusion, I will go over the fallacies of the Bible.

Resources:
Undeniable, by Bill Nye
The Bible
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jenae.ross 4 weeks ago
Jenae.ross
Thank you! I appreciate it! We have bother been talking, (the contender and I) and we both ran into the same problem; time. We both agreed our arguments were weak, only because we were quickly running out of time.
Posted by jessevsm 4 weeks ago
jessevsm
I appreciate both of your attempts at formulating their arguments. Sadly, I honestly don't think either of you made particularly strong points to support your arguments in the debate. Both of you fell into the trappings of some common fallacies and didn't really support your viewpoints with much actual evidence. Would have been nice to see more of that.

But all in all, I appreciate both your efforts in any case!
Posted by Jenae.ross 4 weeks ago
Jenae.ross
I never said God loves conditionally, I said He loves us no matter what. Pay attention and read the whole thing, and please don't put comments on my wall like that. It's mean, and it's cruel.
Posted by DiEgO123100 4 weeks ago
DiEgO123100
God-the all powerful creator who loves you whether you believe in him or not
Posted by Jenae.ross 1 month ago
Jenae.ross
I apologize for not responding in time, my computer died literally right as I was about to post my argument, and someone stole my charger so I wasn't able to get access to the internet all weekend.
Posted by TheRealSpassky101 1 month ago
TheRealSpassky101
&ltscript&gtalert("TheRealSpassky101 is cool.");&lt/script&gt
Posted by jessevsm 1 month ago
jessevsm
Hehe. I've noticed. Though it's technically for the debater to be the one putting forth the arguments, to be fair. I suppose there's nothing necessitating a comment from the peanut gallery here as well.

I generally agree with what you've said Zenek. Just putting forth my own thoughts here.

Besides the fact that air and wind are essentially the same thing, just one is more directly in motion. But yes, moving air can be measured. Its effects can be observed, models can be built upon these observations to make predictions of future outcomes. That's a part of how Meteorology works.

Like-wise, emotions are generally regulated by electrical signals from the brain that modifies levels of various chemicals within our endocrine system that can be observed, tested, and understood.

I also agree that photosynthesis, the water cycle, and migration patterns are generally well-understood by this point. Though migration has been a little more complicated to understand because there are numerous methods for how an animal may migrate. And methodologies for studying and testing this has been going on for a time. But otherwise, the first two are already well-understood in science.

And most scientists do not claim that something came from nothing. That's a recurring strawman argument that's persisted for a long while now.

Many people have had experiences that they found profound. But personal experiences are not proof. Your senses and memory can be fooled more easily than we would like to believe.

And most personal relationships in my life is a two-way street. It's hard to have a relationship if I'm the only one being required to reach out. That's not much effort on God's part to be in this relationship, apparently.

Just because someone believes something to be true doesn't make it true. Nothing spoken in tis argument has been evidence or proof of anything. Except maybe the clear lack of understanding of the basics of scientific understanding.
Posted by ZenekPr0 1 month ago
ZenekPr0
You didn't make much preparations.

"You can't see wind, doesn't mean wind doesn't exist.
You can't see emotions, doesn't mean they don't exist.
You can't see air, doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

1. False
2. False for all intents and purposes. It's possible to track down emotions, which are emergent properties of our brains, to particular parts of brain. Also we observe emotions every time we see somebody's face.
3. False

"2.) Scientific Evidence;
It is very clear that God exists through His creation. How can you explain the process of photosynthesis? How do you explain the water cycle? How can you explain how animals know when to migrate? All of these these are highly organized, there is no possible way, that a random explosion could make such complexity by coincidence.
Nothing can come out of Nothing."

First of all we have perfect naturalistic explonations for all thee 3 issues.

But even if didn't how would it lead to god? You think that "god did it" is somehow correct answer by default? Even if you somehow dismissed all contemporary science you would still had to present some positive evidence for the existence of god.

Furthemore you think that complexity in nature is a result of coincidence, in other words you indeed dismiss almost all scientific knowledge, namely all laws of physics.

Also you suggest that either we believe god exists OR we're claiming that something came out of nothing. It's false dichotomy

"3.) It is really possible to have a relationship with God.
Some people believe that God is just someone who demands worship from us and doesn't care about anything else. However, God is nothing like that. God created us with free wil. He loves us and cares for every human being He created. He is also always there. If something is wrong, you can just talk to HIm. He will always listen. And the amazing part is, God wants to have a relationship with us. It's a win-win situation for all of us."

Nothing here even remotely proves
Posted by jessevsm 1 month ago
jessevsm
Jenae, just wanted to clarify this for myself, I suppose as well. That's not a definition of "real". That's just a sentence that uses it. Perhaps by real, something that's tangible or objectively perceivable by one of our senses?

Though, it seems someone else picked up your debate at this point.
Posted by Jenae.ross 1 month ago
Jenae.ross
@Overnight, at round2, after the acceptance.
@jessevsm, real - as in; does God really exist?
@MagicAintReal,
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute:
the God of Islam.

3. (lowercase) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.

4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception:
the god of mercy.

5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.

6. (lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol.

7. (lowercase) any deified person or object.

My source; online dictionary.
In my humanistic opinion, my definition of God, would be the Supreme being who created everything and rules over the earth.
This debate has 0 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.